Jesus would want you to pay more taxes to the Federal Government - Obama's first
commandment. I suspect Obama will probably try to re-write the New Testament
when he re-writes the US constitution.... or just ban both of them like the good
Marxist that he is.
Jesus also taught though shall not steal. Though shall not covet. Why would he
give these commandments, if he didn't expect inequality? He knows people have
the ability to make their own choices. Not even Jesus is going to force people
to be righteous. That was Satans plan. Jesus plan is to allow everyone a chance
to make their own decisions and reap the consequences of them.You'll
notice barack and his cronies won't donate their own money to help the poor. And
everytime they "help" the poor by attacking anyone that works, the
more power they have and the more poor we have.Here's the question
to ask barack. If you want to help the poor. Then why are you taxing charitable
contributions? Doesn't it make sense to allow charities to keep their money and
distribut it to the poor? I guarantee barack is going to take his
"fair" share and create a czar to oversee the funds he strips from
religion and gives to himself.
LDS Liberal keeps using that word "liberal." I do not think it means
what he/she thinks it means.
To "LDS Liberal" I want to get in my comments too here.First of all, when Jesus said that "For unto whomsoever much is given, of
him shall be much required" it is speaking of eternal judgements, not of
money.Tell us how taking this scripture out of context justifies
increasing taxes on anybody? If we use that logic, then the US should be taxed
on a global scale because the even the poor in the US earn more than the average
person in most of the world.Give us a scripture or reference that
states that the government should tax us and control us more.Everything I have ever seen states the opposite. Giving is a personal thing,
and that as we are more obediant to God's will for us, we need less and less
government.Please give us something that is clear, and not taken out
of context that supports your statements.
@ LDS liberalJoseph Smith was a liberal? I spit my orange juice all over
my computer when I read that! Very funny!
The Gospel according to Obama (and Bush)Take away the rights and
freedoms of every land and nation on earth.
Mountanman | 8:19 a.m. Feb. 13, 2012 Hayden, ID @ Christy ==================== the truth is in the deatails.Liberals are more likely to not be religously affliated, and so remain
skeptical as to who is right, and who is wrong.They certainly can't all be
right.And what if they are ALL wrong?Joseph Smith recorded
having those exact same thoughts too.[Yes, he was liberal]Meanwhile - If I didn't believe in any ONE true religion, I'd too
would be more likely to turn my $$ over to a religously neutral Government for
redistribution, than over to a highly selective, intolerant, and bigoted
Religous organization.I hope that helps you see the 300 Million
other Americans in general -- and not just a little knott-hole view of the
world from some Mormon guy hid out in Hayden Idaho.
@ Christy Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University whose work
involves public policy and philanthropy, has written a new book called Who
Really Cares: Americaâs Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesnât, and
Why It Matters. Brooks found that âreligious conservatives donate far more
money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective
of income.âIt seems liberals are blatent hypocrites and want to
force us to accept the government as the only worthy charity!
To whom much is given, much is required. I know there are some rich Democrats
who believe this. Are there any rich Republicans who do?The GOP
always claims the monopoly on God. But boy, do they go against the greatest of
commandments, to love one another, as you've been loved. Oh, you're
supposed to be charitable on your own, and not when government tells you?Then just do it.
I keep asking the LDS literalists in these discussions the same question: why
does it bother you that the government asks/commands you to do something God has
already asked/commanded you to do (support the poor)? You are free to suffer the
consequences of disobeying either - in this life or the next. You are
specifically condemned to hell in your own scripture for trying to judge who's
worthy of your support. I'm not bothered by the government asking me to give -
even all. It's already a promise I made. Does it bother you that the government
asks you not to murder?
newintown | 9:07 p.m. Feb. 12, 2012 WOODS CROSS, UT @ Mike
Richards:Save your breath. LDS? Liberal is neither LDS or liberal.
================= Regarding Jesus and taxes when the
Conservative Pharisees asked him what to do - his reply, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars."Money had
Cearsars face on it. Meaning - Just go ahead and pay your taxes.Salvation has NOTHING to do with money.You say I'm not a
"real" LDS, but it you who seem to be the ones worshipping
Babylon and Mammon.
When Jesus advised the young rich man to sell everything he had and give it to
the poor, I am pretty sure he wasn't suggesting the young man send it to the
Roman government for redistribution, Solyndra loans,paying for other people's
birth control, their abortions or bail outs! My, how the definition of
"compassion" has changed!
LIBERAL LDS: The use of the "word of God" or "Gospel of
Christ" by governmental officials to extrapolate funds, and in this case,
force health care mandates, at the point of duress and threat (in this case
FINES) is nothing less than PRIESTCRAFT.
@ LDS Liberal,You have used the interpretation of the doctrine
selectively as you so often do. Your assertion suggests that it is the
responsibility of the state to demand that more be given by those who have more.
It presumes that they do not give more already. Just curios, how does what you
gave last year compare to what Romney gave? Are you measuring by percentages or
actual amounts?Or, do you have some special insight into what others
give? many who have been given more give so much more that they don't broadcast
for your benefit or for the amusement of others. They give and don't publish it
for the accolades of man. All you see is what ceasar requires them to report.Will your politics of class envy never find an end?
@ Mike Richards:Save your breath. LDS? Liberal is neither LDS or
liberal. krauthammer will be pilloried on these posts, but he is
spot on in this article. Spot on. In the day, Obama would have been stoned to
presume to speak in the name of God. How ironic that this secular president
chooses to invoke the bible to support his social engineering and no one of his
supporters raises the issue of "separation of church and state". What
an absolute charlatain Obama is. And what an aberration that LDS Liberal
supports his position.
RE: LDS LiberalSo where did Jesus mention the government, or use the
government to compel goodness and charity?It was an individual
mandate.You are judged by your own works, not by the governments you
form.You are to work out your own salvaton, it is not collective.
@ LDS Liberal 5:26 p.m. Feb. 12, 2012"How about a little Logic
test; If Obama quotes Jesus, Does that make Jesus
wrong?"Yes. Yes it does. Because, Obama is not a Republican.
re: Hutterite 12:46 a.m. Feb. 12, 2012"The best thing we can
do is separate leadership from religion."What would happen to
the GOP? It might disintegrate.... darn!?
Great column from Charles Krauthammer, as usual.
So - All I can say to the Obama haters --You must not really believe
Christ, it was HE who said - "For unto whomsoever much is given, of
him shall be much required."How about a little Logic test; If Obama quotes Jesus, Does that make Jesus wrong?
Is Krauthammer a 1 percenter? BYUalum. You make me happy I never went to BYU.
All those required religion classes aparently taught you nothing important.
I don't believe our President was trying to give a "gospel"...just
common sense. If people have more, they should give more. That is simplistic
and some may not agree (I believe mostly those that HAVE more, may not tend to
LDS Liberal--I don't know what Mitt Romney might say to answer your questions
about the United Order and communism, but here's what the First Presidency said
in 1942: "Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship
whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which
Satan always devises of the Gospel plan ... The United Order leaves every man
free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys
man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints
cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of
these false philosophies ..."Is that clear enough for you?
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. Defeat BHO and clean house, literally!
LDS Liberal,The man sitting in the Oval Office is Obama, not Romney.
The man who has taken an oath of office to DEFEND the Constitution is Obama,
not Romney. The man who told the Catholic Church that it must provide
abortifacients and contraceptives to its members (who work at its charity
hospitals) is Obama, not Romney.When Romney is President, then you
can question what he does or thinks, until then, why not concentrate on the man
who sits in the oval office and lay off those who will unseat him?What does YOUR Church say about government interference in Religion? Do YOU
believe that the LDS Church should be FORCED to pay for abortifacients or even
for contraceptives to those who work at the Bishop's Storehouse or at Primary
Children's Hospital? Do YOU believe that the 1st Amendment should protect an
establishment of religion from government interference or not?
Unelecting Obama is the prime goal.
Once again, Charles Krauthammer is back on his rant...Hey - Speaking
of Gospel and American Presidents -- Has anyone yet bothered to ask GOP
frontrunner Mitt Romney if he believes in the Law of Consecration, United Order
or Social Justice?That should throw the Anti-Union,
Anti-Anything-Socialist, we hate all Communists [except the Chinese]
Radical-right into a Political Tail-Spin.
40 years ago the mantra was to "stay out of my bedroom" and
"stay out of my womb". For those so disposed, the accomplishment of
this is not enough as they now, through their champions President Obama and
Kathleen Sebelius, demand that someone else be responsible for providing the
means to prevent or terminate pregnancy. While it may be true that the cost of
contraception may be a burden for some, that does not make it the responsibility
of someone else to pay for their choices. Chastity is also a choice, and quite
frankly, the best form of birth control available. The logic and philosophy
behind free birth control for all is flawed, yet a significant proportion of our
citizenry and our national leadership have bought into it and promote it, and
denying others their choice and freedom of conscience. Oh, the hypocrisy!
The best thing we can do is separate leadership from religion.