179 replies to this topic

[semlogo]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

This is a classic Liberal fallacy- placing poor people in some sort of moral authority because they are poor.

You can count Jesus among the "liberal and fallacious" then.

Luke 6:20

20 ¶ And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 ¶ Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
22 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
24 ¶ But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
25 ¶ Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
26 ¶ Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Edited by semlogo, 10 December 2010 - 11:21 AM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

HAS given everything, or WOULD give everything if called upon to do so?

Hello. In another thread you asked me for an example of Meldrum maligning other scholars. I provided a few examples and anticipate your response soon, as you've had time to read and comment on other threads. Thanks!

[BookofMormonLuvr]

semlogo, on 10 December 2010 - 11:21 AM, said:

You can count Jesus among the "liberal and fallacious" then.

Luke 6:20

20 ¶ And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 ¶ Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
22 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
24 ¶ But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
25 ¶ Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
26 ¶ Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

I can't believe I have to explain myself...

The Liberal fallacy is the the poor are in some position of moral authority simply because they are poor and for no other reason. The scriptures are clear that the poor can be just as prideful as the rich can.

The economic status of a person gives them no special moral authority.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Quote

Life On a Plate:
Hello. In another thread >you asked</a> me for an example of Meldrum maligning other scholars. I provided a few examples and anticipate your response soon, as you've had time to read and comment on other threads. Thanks!

Are you stalking me into other threads?

I think you all need to develop thicker skins- That is my response.

Edit: From all your guy's talk I thought maybe he had condemned Meso-American leaning scholars to the lower rungs of Outer Darkness.

Edited by BookofMormonLuvr, 10 December 2010 - 11:32 AM.

[Ahab]

Consider a man who has both charity and riches (as "riches" are defined by the worldly) and then suppose the rich man comes to realize there are many people who are poor in the world (as "poor" is defined by the worldly).

What do you think the rich man would need to do to not only enter the kingdom of heaven, but to also stay there?

[semlogo]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

I can't believe I have to explain myself...

The Liberal fallacy is the the poor are in some position of moral authority simply because they are poor and for no other reason. The scriptures are clear that the poor can be just as prideful as the rich can.

The economic status of a person gives them no special moral authority.

You vs Jesus. Sorry, I believe Jesus.

[LifeOnaPlate]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

This is a classic Liberal fallacy- placing poor people in some sort of moral authority because they are poor.

(all in good fun, I just thought it was a funny chance to post this pic)

[BookofMormonLuvr]

semlogo, on 10 December 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

You vs Jesus. Sorry, I believe Jesus.

So you honestly believe a person has moral authority by the mere fact that he is poor? No humility needed, eh? No Money=Heaven? Interesting concept...

And not one I believe Jesus was teaching.

[elguanteloko]

Analytics, on 10 December 2010 - 08:31 AM, said:

According to Robert Millet, "Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said when he taught that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. There is no metaphor intended. No softening of this hard saying by linguistic or cultural traditions is justifiable. The Savior said what he said. "Who then can be saved?" the apostles asked. "With men that trust in riches, it is impossible; but not impossible with men who trust in God and leave all for my sake, for with such all things are possible" (JST, Mark 10:22-26; compare JST, Matt. 19:26;JST Luke 18:27)."

The apostles found this doctrine quite difficult to accept.  Do you guys accept it?  Just curious.

Another reason why there aren't Christians anymore. A "Christian" today is so astonishingly different from what one would expect of a follower of the Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:16

Quote

"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ

I don't see anyone with the mind of Christ and everytime someone says a specific person has "the Spirit" very strongly, I have to wonder if the spirit makes any difference.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Quote

3 Nephi 12:3

Yea, blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Edited by BookofMormonLuvr, 10 December 2010 - 11:44 AM.

[elguanteloko]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

The economic status of a person gives them no special moral authority.

"Moral authority" is kind of misleading. What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ. Can you name me a rich person who you think is the camel that will pass through the eye of a needle? Will this person trust in God to feed him and take care of him while he gives everything to the poor and goes around preaching in His name?

Edited by elguanteloko, 10 December 2010 - 11:47 AM.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

elguanteloko, on 10 December 2010 - 11:45 AM, said:

"Moral authority" is kind of misleading. What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ. Can you name me a rich person who you think is the camel that will pass through the eye of a needle? Will this person trust in God to feed him and take care of him while he gives everything to the poor and goes around preaching in His name?

Are you telling me every poor person can?

How is the heart condition of the person lost in this whole discussion? Astounding.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ."


Are you truly willing to stand behind this pronouncement?

[elguanteloko]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 11:47 AM, said:

Are you telling me every poor person can?

No. All follower of Christ will leave everything they have to help the poor.

[elguanteloko]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

"What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ."

Are you truly willing to stand behind this pronouncement?

Absolutely.

[semlogo]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

So you honestly believe a person has moral authority by the mere fact that he is poor? No humility needed, eh? No Money=Heaven? Interesting concept...

And not one I believe Jesus was teaching.

Jesus clearly taught and believed that yes, to a certain extent, there is a spiritual benefit to being poor and a disadvantage to being rich. You have to flatly contradict the words of Christ to believe otherwise.

[LifeOnaPlate]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 11:27 AM, said:

Are you stalking me into other threads?

If by stalking you mean answering your question and then asking for a response, then yes. You asked me for a reference and I spent a few minutes putting it together for you. I think it would be sort of rude to ask for a reference and then ignore it after that.

[semlogo]

Bookofmormonlvr:

3 Nephi does not address the passage in Luke I quoted.

[Jeff K.]

Jesus was significantly richer than many of the poor around him, therefore was he condemnd because he did not give of his personal property (ie his cloak) was Judas right to condemn the spikenard of oil put upon the feet of Christ by Mary?

Of course not.  It is amazing how people compartmentalize the scriptures without looking at the full and correct context within the life of Christ.  Poverty does NOT create moral authority, righteousness in the form of Christ's love does.  In that sense the amount of money one has has nothing to do with their moral authority.

Some may wish to condemn Christ for not giving of his substance, cloaks, oil, perfume and so on.... Using the logic some claim to use, you would be forced to, or call Christ Himself a hypocrite.  I prefer to understand the correct context in the matter and see how Christ's stance was more in tune with the condemnation of desiring things of the world, not dividing moral superiority by economic standards.  Silly me.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Jesus clearly taught and believed that yes, to a certain extent, there is a spiritual benefit to being poor and a disadvantage to being rich. You have to flatly contradict the words of Christ to believe otherwise.

Are you stating that because Christ was not as poor as many he taught that he was somehow less morally able to teach?  Remember "rich" is a relative term, not an objective one.