Follow up from the “Christian” Left

This. Is. Classic. My new buddies at the “Christian” Left  are sad that I’ve stated that they deny the divinity of Christ, and they are aggressively denying that they are deniers.

Some of our fundie critics like to accuse us of denying the divinity of Christ. We can’t figure out if they’re purposely lying or just misled. We do no such thing. No one understands the Trinity. No one. We do not deny the divinity of Christ. In the past we’ve posted articles that attempt to analyze which aspects of Jesus were true man and which aspects were true God. Apparently the fundies freaked out about that. That’s generally what happens when they are forced to think outside their template.

Hmmmm . . . maybe they should pay attention to what Mark Sandlin, one of their leaders, says in his posts:

No Trinity for me, please

Jesus is not my God

Subtle, eh?  You’ll get the same message from false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way but He sure is a bigot” Currie.

Now how could we possibly get the idea that the “Christian” Left denies the divinity of Christ and the Trinity just because they post articles saying, “Jesus is not my God” and “No trinity for me, please” and more?

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Follow up from the “Christian” Left”

  1. I think the problem is that most Christians that I know that believe the Christian right subculture (i.e. active in the church and press hard for the Republican platform) is wrong about a lot of things when politics and Christianity collide, do NOT come close to denying the deity of Christ.

    I follow the “Christian Left” Facebook page because I actually do believe that Jesus cares more about the poor than He is concerned about the redistribution of wealth. Jesus told us to store our treasures in heaven. I don’t think He is too concerned with the well off paying a little more in taxes.

    I do disagree with a lot of liberal issues as I do conservative issues. I am not sure if the Christian Left is as lock step as the Christian right. I just don’t think you can paint such a broad stroke. I guess I am not the Christian Left or the Christian RIght. Maybe I am just the Christian Correct! 😉

    Like

    1. Nothing unites the “Christian” left like protecting the killing of the most defenseless among us in the womb, and redefining marriage. Both are sinful and do nothing to help the poor.

      Like

      1. Hi Danny.
        Like I said, what unites me with them is concern for the poor. So, abortion doesn’t enter into any conversation about the left that I am in. I am against abortion. I am also against making a mother that is afraid they can’t afford a baby do without help. I am anti-abortion, but also pro infant. I want that infant taken care of, not abandoned. I think Christians who protest abortion should also encourage help for mother and child – even if that means more taxes. I am truly pro life, not just pro birth.

        Like

      2. We do encourage that, and help with our own $$. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day without being obligated to care for all the victims. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love live, pressure from boyfriends / parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection.

        Having said that, countless pro-lifers help women and children with their own time and money.

        And remember that asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on the part of the Left.

        The Left should do more to encourage adoptions.

        Like

      3. >We do encourage that, and help with our own $$. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day without being obligated to care for all the victims. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love live, pressure from boyfriends / parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection.

        Having said that, countless pro-lifers help women and children with their own time and money.

        And remember that asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on the part of the Left.

        The Left should do more to encourage adoptions.<<

        I agree with all of this. I am not silent about abortion. Otherwise I would be silent here. I agree that everyone should do what they can to stop abortion – including help to mother and child, encouraging adoption, education, etc. I don't single out a group; we ALL should do those things.

        I agree that government aid isn't charity. I wish charity was enough. It just isn't. I am not willing to have the attitude of, "I am a Christian and I give a lot to the poor through charities so now I can just wash my hands of the rest of the poor whose needs aren't met. It isn't my problem. I did MY part." I submit that no one is finished doing THEIR part until all of the needs are met. If that is through the government and tax dollars, so be it. What's more important?

        Like

      4. I submit that no one is finished doing THEIR part until all of the needs are met.

        We do as much as we as individuals can. But remember, Jesus did say that the poor would always be with us, so we can never expect to eradicate poverty.

        Like

      5. I agree for the most part with what you guys are saying. I am NOT for just throwing money at something. However, I am also NOT for just throwing my hands in the air and saying that we should just quit subsidizing programs to help the poor because it isn’t working as efficiently as it should be. We don’t have to make those the only two options.

        I don’t agree with the “no sweets, etc.” philosophy. I am not all about punishing children because their parents are in poverty and receiving aid.

        I am also not in favor of having a country where businesses can pay their employees a wage that, even if they work full time, forces them to still live in poverty and are ENCOURAGED, mind you, by their employers to apply for food stamps. I would think more conservatives would be for a higher minimum wage. Otherwise, tax payers are subsidizing labor for business. How is that worse than just helping the poor through our tax dollars without subsidizing private business’s labor (in other words, helping business to maximize their profits by our tax dollars)?

        Like

      6. Jeff,
        Sweets are a luxury item. Children are not being punished by not being allowed sweets. Children in this country have TOOOOOOOOO many sweets. Help is for needs, not luxuries.

        As for minimum wage, no where in the Constitution does it permit the federal government to tell employers what they must pay. No one should tell an employer what they must pay. Raising minimum wage always hurts the low income people because jobs are cut. Many businesses are finding it cheaper to do away with employees and automate everything. Even MacDonalds is trying out automatic ordering and paying. Look at Wal-Mart with all their self-serve lines which in the past gave people jobs. You really need to study economics.

        Like

      7. Glenn:

        >Sweets are a luxury item. Children are not being punished by not being allowed sweets. Children in this country have TOOOOOOOOO many sweets. Help is for needs, not luxuries.<>As for minimum wage, no where in the Constitution does it permit the federal government to tell employers what they must pay. No one should tell an employer what they must pay. Raising minimum wage always hurts the low income people because jobs are cut. Many businesses are finding it cheaper to do away with employees and automate everything. Even MacDonalds is trying out automatic ordering and paying. Look at Wal-Mart with all their self-serve lines which in the past gave people jobs. You really need to study economics.<<

        I would never argue that the minimum wage requirement is in the Constitution. There are only about 7600 words in the Constitution so we would go around a long time if we were going to start getting rid of everything that isn't in there. If we were to do that, the first thing that should go is political parties. There are no Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, or any other party in there, but the parties sure have dominated government including governing how we even elect those that the Constitution actually does provide for – but I digress.

        Please try to avoid personal attacks. I was so proud of this discussion until you had to tell me what you think I needed to study. I will not retaliate because I am more interested in having a constructive discussion. Once we go down that personal attack path, the discussion and its merits are lost. Please try not to do that again. I would appreciate it.

        According to the non-partisan CBO, a minimum wage increase COULD cost some jobs (it estimates perhaps a half million) but it would also lift nearly a whole million out of poverty. That means that Food Stamp recipients would drop by a half a million or so and McDonalds and Walmart would no longer have our tax dollars to subsidize the wages they pay. For those who champion capitalism, they should like that it would force businesses to compete without the aid of government. I find that conservatives and liberals both like government aid, they just differ on who should get it. Liberals like to give it to the poor and conservatives tend to like to give it business (e.g. as part of the McD's and Walmart's benefits package as I have already mentioned, plus oil subsidies, etc.), None of which are in the Constitution as it turns out.

        Like

      8. Jeff,
        You are being ridiculous. The Constitution tells what the government is permitted to do and how it is to be established. All your examples of what’s not in it are just foolish.

        So telling you what you need to study is a “personal attack”?!?!? Wow, aren’t you offended easily. My point was that you demonstrated no understanding of what minimum wage laws do.

        CBO says what it COULD do vs what it DOES do. Empirical evidence of what it does do trumps speculations.

        I don’t think governments should EVER support businesses. IF you can’t make it on your own, that’s your problem; get rid of all subsidies. Perhaps SOME conservatives want government aid, but I have yet to meet one.

        As for minimum wage, look at what an economics professor says:

        Intervention by politicians, judges, or others, in order to impose terms more favorable to one side – minimum wage laws or rent control laws, or example – reduces the overlapping set of mutually agreeable terms and, almost invariably, reduces the number of mutually acceptable transactions, as the party disfavored by the intervention makes fewer transactions subsequently.  Countries with generous minimum wage laws, for example, often have higher unemployment rates and longer periods of unemployment than other countries, as employers offer fewer jobs to inexperienced and low-skilled workers, who are typically the least valued and lowest paid – and who are most often priced out of a job by minimum wage laws.

        It is not uncommon in European countries with generous minimum wage laws, as well as other worker benefits that employers are mandated to pay for, to have inexperienced younger workers with unemployment rates of 20 percent or more.  Employers are made slightly worse off by having to rearrange their businesses and perhaps pay for more machinery to replace the low-skilled workers whom it is no longer economic to hire.  But those low-skilled, usually younger, workers may be made much worse off by not being able to get jobs as readily, losing both the wages they could earn otherwise and sustaining the perhaps greater loss of not acquiring the work experience that would lead to better jobs and higher pay.

        Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.70

        If someone has a right, someone else has an obligation.  But the proposed right to a “living wage,” for example, is not based on any obligation agreed to by an employer.  On the contrary, this “right” is cited as a reason why government should force the employer to pay what third parties would like to be paid.

        Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.157 

        Crusaders for a “living wage” or to end “sweatshop labor” in the Third World, for example, may invest great amounts of time and energy promoting those goals but virtually none in scrutinizing the many studies done in countries around the world to discover the actual consequences of minimum wage laws in general or of “living wage” laws in particular.  These consequences have included periods of unemployment, especially for the least skilled and least experienced segments of the population.  Whether one agrees with or disputes these studies, the crucial question here is whether one bothers to read them at all.

        Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.181

        The last year in which black unemployment was lower than white unemployment – 1930 – was also the last year in which there was no federal minimum wage law.  The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was openly advocated by some members of Congress on grounds that it would stop black construction workers from taking jobs from white construction workers by working for less than the union wages of white workers.  Nor was the use of minimum wage laws to deliberately price competing workers out of labor market unique to the Davis-Bacon Act or to the United States.  Similar arguments were made in Canada in the 1920s, where the object was to price Japanese immigrants out of the labor market, and in South Africa in the era of apartheid, to price non-whites out of the labor market.

        Any group whose labor is less in demand, whether for lack of skills or for other reasons, is disproportionately priced out of labor markets when there are minimum wage laws, which are usually established in disregard of differences in skills or experience.  It has not been uncommon in Western Europe, for example, for young people to have unemployment rates above 20 percent.

        Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, pp.450-451

        Intellectuals give people who have the handicap of poverty the further handicap of a sense of victimhood. They have encouraged the poor to believe that their poverty is caused by the rich — a message which may be a passing annoyance to the rich but a lasting handicap to the poor, who may see less need to make fundamental changes in their own lives that could lift themselves up, instead of focusing their efforts on dragging others down.

        Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.544

        Like

      9. Glenn:

        I guess this will be my last post in this discussion because you refuse to refrain from persona attacks. Yes, I do know what personal attacks are. I used to be bad at it till I figured out that it doesn’t represent me or my God very well while it also cheapens the argument. I will give you a clue on how to recognize them. When you insert the word “you” and follow it with something negative, that is a personal attack by definition. Here are examples of your personal attacks:

        “YOU (emphasis mine) really need to study economics.”
        “YOU are being ridiculous.”
        “…YOU demonstrated no understanding of what minimum wage laws do.”

        Yes, telling me what I need to study is a personal attack because it is about me and not the topic. Plus it implies that I have a deficit in education when you know nothing about me or my education. We are talking about political and economic issues, not about me. Why is that you seem not to be able to help yourself concerning this? All personal attacks do is promote defensiveness and retaliation. I felt this temptation very strongly and I don’t want to risk representing myself or my God in an unfavorable way. Just not going to do it. Once that feeling in invoked, then I realize that a civil discussion of the issues becomes tainted and holds less meaning. So, this will be my last post on the subject.

        You cited in supporting your argument a very conservative economist who has repeatedly compared President Obama to Hitler. That isn’t someone that I think has a lot of credibility when it comes to being objective. By contrast, I cited the a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

        When I cite sources, I try to only cite nonpartisan or even sources that are generally in the opposing camp in ideology. When one cites sources that ideologically biased, it exposes a weakness in objective argument.

        For instance, Bloomberg Businessweek (hardly a liberal rag) reports, “It’s getting harder and harder to argue that economists oppose a higher minimum wage. Certainly many do. But seven Nobel prize-winning economists and eight former presidents of the American Economic Association have signed a new letter, released today, urging Congress to raise the federal minimum from its current level of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 by 2016.”

        In addition, we can look at the effects of raising the minimum wage in states that have already done so on their own. The Center For Economic and Policy Research (a nonprofit, nonpartisan group) reports, “Economists at Goldman Sachs conducted a simple evaluation of the impact of these state minimum-wage increases. GS compared the employment change between December and January in the 13 states where the minimum wage increased with the changes in the remainder of the states. The GS analysis found that the states where the minimum wage went up had faster employment growth than the states where the minimum wage remained at its 2013 level.

        When we updated the GS analysis using additional employment data from the BLS, we saw the same pattern: employment growth was higher in states where the minimum wage went up.

        Of the 13 states that increased their minimum wage in early 2014, all but one (New Jersey) are seeing employment gains. Furthermore, nine of the remaining 12 states are above the median for this period. The average change in employment for the 13 states that increased their minimum wage is +0.99% while the remaining states have an average employment change of +0.68%.

        The experience of the 13 states that already increased their minimum wage in 2014 paints a very positive picture for Washington (who recently voted to raise its minimum wage) and its low-wage workers.”

        Glenn, we can agree to disagree if you want. I will request one more time (in case we cross again on this blog) to try to keep your discussion to the issue at hand and not what you think of me, my position, or any assumed education or lack thereof you believe relates to me. Thanks.

        Like

      10. Jeff,

        So, if you go into a store and don’t have money to purchase the item you want, and the storekeeper says, “YOU don’t have enough money,” is that a personal attack???

        You proved by your statements that you don’t understand economics of wage control. Anyone reading your response about what the Constitution permits would most likely come to the same conclusion as I did, that the response was ridiculous.

        And my statements were indeed about the topic, pointing out that you did not have the proper understanding to comment on the topic, evidenced by your statements. Pointing out your lack of understanding on a subject is not an attack on you – it is an observation. As to your education, I don’t need to know what it is in order to know that your statements are fallacious. You don’t need to play the victim.

        Thomas Sowell repeatedly compares Obama to Hitler because the particular comparisons are quite apt. But Sowell noted the many studies which he used to make his comments on. I have read very similar commentaries from other economists. Perhaps you should read more of Sowell and learn a wee bit more about him before you accuse him of being biased. Of course we all know how unbiased the CBO is, don’t we? They have many times been proven to be in error, by the way, over the years. It’s interesting how much Washington’s reports will support Washington’s ideologies.

        Still, you haven’t demonstrated where the U.S. Government has the right to demand employers pay their employees anything particular. It is not a right given to the federal government. If state governments want to do so, they may – depending upon what their constitutions allow. Even OBAMACARE is unconstitutional, regardless of what the SCOTUS lackeys claim – nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to demand people have health insurance or even that employers must provide it. SCOTUS had to call it a tax to approve it, which is as fallacious as finding a right to abortion in the “emanations of the penumbra” to the Constitution.

        Employment growth with higher wages? Interesting; I think Sowell’s examples prove otherwise. Any time an employer has to raise salaries or provide extra benefits (e.g. Obamacare), they must make up for it someplace in order to stay afloat and continue to make money. Huge corporations don’t have a problem with that, although they are the ones who will automate so as to reduce employee needs, but small businesses can’t compete by raising their prices to cover and must cut back employees. I have personally heard from friends and family with businesses who had to cut hours of their employees so as to not have to pay health benefits. I personally know one woman who is working three jobs because she cannot get full-time employment.

        How much study of “employment growth” takes into effect one individual working two or more jobs? Yes, more jobs are filled, but by the same person!!!! The employment gains are not more people, just more jobs taken by those who need two or three to stay afloat!

        Like

    2. Hi Jeff,

      Great points about caring for the poor and laying up treasures in Heaven. I couldn’t agree more, yet if anyone pays attention they’ll see that the “Christian” Left is never asking their people to serve/give more, they are asking Caesar to make others do it for them.

      Glad you are in the Christian camp – that’s the most important one!

      Like

    3. My question is; what is concern for the poor?
      Helping them to learn to manage their money and get a job.
      OR
      Throwing money at them and feeling all warm inside. (Especially if it is not your money.)

      Like

      1. This is my frustration. People who argue against government aid seems to pin one thing against the other like there are only two choices. What is wrong with helping them learn to manage finances, obtain job training, AND making money available for them to help meet their needs. Since I pay taxes it IS my money.

        I just don’t know how it is Christian to side with people who would rather risk people living in destitution than paying a little more to help them.

        Like

      2. I just don’t know how it is Christian to side with people who would rather risk people living in destitution than paying a little more to help them.

        I don’t know any Christian who does side with such a philosophy. Never knew any. But there is more money going to help the poor now that giving more is worthless as long as the bulk of it goes to bureaucracy and not to the people, and as long as there are no strings attached to the help — i.e., if you are able to work then you’d better do so if you want help.

        Like

  2. I’ve never known a Christian on the “right” to NOT be concerned about the poor. But the government has spent trillions of dollars for the poor and have done nothing but create more poor. More money goes to the bureaucracy than to actually helping the poor, which is why they have to keep asking for more money!

    Like

    1. I don’t know who said this.
      But when you subsidize something you get more of it and when you tax something you get less of it. We have been subsidizing poverty and taxing workers for years and you see what we have.

      Like

      1. That’s what Washington never wants to do. So until they decide to make the money work instead of paying for the administration of it, don’t give them any more money! Why do you think throwing more money at a worthless cause will make things any better?

        All the welfare programs need to be revamped so we aren’t paying people more on welfare than they would make working, we shouldn’t be paying to have it more beneficial for the fathers of children to leave their families, nor should we make having zillions of kids a way for them to get paid. EBT/Food stamps, etc should NEVER pay for anything not essential for life — i.e, no sweets, no soft drinks, no steaks, etc. There should be restrictions.

        Like

  3. On an aside, I appreciate a thread where people can disagree without being disagreeable or engaging in personal attacks. Thank you, guys!

    Like

  4. To Ematters (Neil is it?),

    Well, it was nice while it lasted. The personal attacks were starting to creep in. It wasn’t severe, but it could have easily gone bad from there. So, I have to refrain from entering into that. It isn’t because I am superior, quite the opposite. I can be very hateful if I let myself slip into that. I just don’t want to go there. I can’t believe it would be pleasing to God. All in all it hasn’t been a bad experience so far and you made me feel very welcomed even when I disagreed. Thank you for that.

    Like

    1. Hi Jeff,

      Thanks for visiting and commenting. I didn’t view Glenn’s comments as personal attacks but how you view them is up to you. You’ll probably want to avoid anything on the “Christian” Left, though, as Glenn is 100 times nicer than they are!

      All the best, and hope you come back.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s