Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP. Next up: nuclear :football: time!
-
Care to vote on which candidate we hear it from first?
Oh fuck, who voted for Carson? Come on people, he is a little crazy, but he is not even in the same league as Trump.
-
Wasn't me.
Maybe they thought he was a surgeon so he'd have some relevant thoughts?
-
Come on people, he is a little crazy, but he is not even in the same league as Trump.
I'm not a Trump fan but the best part about him winning the Presidency, if he does, is all the people who's heads will asplode.
["then we'll need amnesty" joke goes here]
-
Oh yeah, and good luck getting past heaven's border control.
Oh, that's easy. You just need to sell everything you own and give all your money away to the poor.
-
["then we'll need amnesty" joke goes here]
Cape Breton website for Americans fleeing Trump gets flood of serious inquiries | CBC News
Cape Breton's tourism agency is pitching in to help reply to questions from Americans about visiting or even moving to the island if Donald Trump is elected president.
-
In fact, how does anyone have any moral conviction.
It's a solutionspace with many local optima. Finding the global optimum is going to be non-trivial…
-
Oh, that's easy. You just need to sell everything you own and give all your money away to the poor.
If you have a severe problem with greed.... then yes.
I think people jump on greed as a vice because it's easier to point at, plus envy lends its guiding hands.
-
It's a solutionspace with many local optima. Finding the global optimum is going to be non-trivial…
Then... don't.
If someone wants their backwater culture where they throw gays off rooftops, then don't try to convince them there's a global optimum. Just, don't let them mingle with your group.
-
Again I tell you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.
-
-
Man if I weren't too lazy to fill out the grant applications, it'd be an awesome art project to make a GIGANTIC needle and then buy a camel and have it walk back and forth through the eye.
-
Sure, or try to take one up into the revolving restaurant.
-
God is called God of Abraham.
Abraham is rich.
Heaven is Abraham's bosom.If richness precluded one from entering heaven, then we have a paradox.
It is far more likely, in the context of the bible, that Jesus was knowingly making a generalized statement.
Besides, if you're caught up wondering about what other people have, you risk envy, which is an equal sin to apathy.
-
Abraham was on a different plan. He was ‘grandfathered in’, so to speak. Trying to kill your firstborn son doesn't really please god like it used to.
I mean, you can do what you want, idgaf, but the bottom line is that jesus very clearly states that rich people are going to have a hard time trying to get into heaven.
-
we have a paradox
Also, the god you believe in isn't bound by your binary logic. Paradoxes ain't shit before Him. He could make a stone so big that even he couldn't move it, and then he could move it.
-
are going to have a hard time trying to get into heaven.
That's right. They will.
But Abraham was recognized by God for his faith, not for any charitable deed.
In fact, many of the parables contain actions that are rewarded that the average person would find disturbing.
Uncovering a treasure, burying it, then purchasing the land at normal price.
Spending all your inheritance, then returning to have the father reward you.But you have to understand that the reward is for the faith, not for any good deed.
So, while charity is a trait of those that follow God, the "sell all you have" is to relinquish from a barrier of faith. If someone puts their trust in riches, that is the barrier, not the riches themselves.
And to understand that, you have to view everything Jesus did as a whole. Taking out one recommendation he made for one person, and suggesting that wealth is evil, is misunderstanding what he meant, because not one time is wealth regarded as evil.
In fact, wealth is necessary because some people are just going to be better at building wealth and getting others to be productive. If you remove all the wealth from all the productive people, then you'll only find a deterioration in wealth.
And there are far more examples of wealth being a good thing, than a bad thing, in the Bible.
-
Trying to kill your firstborn son doesn't really please god like it used to.
Hebrews 11:19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
-
Uncovering
a treasurethe kingdom of heaven, burying it, thenpurchasing the land at normal priceselling everything you own just to buy it.
Rtfb
-
Then what are poor people supposed to do?
Is the virtue of the poor supposed to be consuming without end?
How do they "buy the kingdom"?
Ananias and Sapphira
In the story, they were told that the land belonged to them, selling it was not necessary.
It was the fact that they lied about what they donated that killed them.
-
Then what are poor people supposed to do?
They can return to their father, and he will slaughter the fatted calf in celebration. It's right there in your previous post.
-
wealth is necessary
“Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”
-
Which again is a verse about faith...
Wealth is a measure of productivity. Someone had to be productive in order for someone to be wealthy. Productivity is necessary.
God told Adam he would have to till the land.
God was not making a case for selling everything you had and going out to sit in a field.
But, you're going to twist everything into your weird hippie kool-aid cult.
-
Again I tell you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.
You didn't finish the quote
Looking at them, Jesus *said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”
-
The way I see it, it's simple: There's nothing wrong with being wealthy, in and of itself. However, desiring wealth is not acceptable, in the eyes of the lord. But the basic premise of capitalism is that each individual acts to maximize their personal profits. I dont see how capitalism could possibly be compatible with the blanket ban on ‘serving mammon’. But show me a rich person who doesn't want to be rich and maybe I'll reconsider.
-
The way I see it, it's simple: There's nothing wrong with being wealthy, in and of itself. However, desiring wealth is not acceptable, in the eyes of the lord.
I don't think desiring wealth is a bad thing in the Bible.
Almost every case has to do with putting faith in wealth.As you say.
But show me a rich person who doesn't want to be rich and maybe I'll reconsider.
There are many rich in the Bible that aren't condemned. Even the rich man Jesus spoke to wasn't being condemned. It says, Jesus loved him. It was Jesus' love that told him that his wealth was a barrier to faith in God.
But the basic premise of capitalism is that each individual acts to maximize their personal profits. I dont see how capitalism could possibly be compatible with the blanket ban on ‘serving mammon’.
Some people choose to put their wealth into charity. Capitalism allows this to happen. Would you deny a person to work in order to provide for others.
Paul responds to people who question the wealth of ministers. He says he personally turned it away so he could boast, but he also said not to condemn those that do obtain wealth through ministry.
1Cor.9
7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk?
11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?
14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.But show me a rich person who doesn't want to be rich and maybe I'll reconsider.
Show me anyone that does not aspire?
You can take this philosophy to the point where even the poor have too much. Poor in the western world have more than poor in 3rd world countries.
And, the poor aren't exempt from greed either.
-
I don't think desiring wealth is a bad thing in the Bible.Almost every case has to do with putting faith in wealth.
I just don't get this though. Jesus lays it down real simple: nothing on earth is more important than the kingdom of heaven (whatever that means). But here you are trying to justify why it's ok for people to be chasing earthly wealth instead. Why?Some people choose to put their wealth into charity
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
-
Why has this become a religion discussion? What does any sort of religion have to do with the US Supreme Court and their decisions? Those two things are completely separate.
-
But here you are trying to justify why it's ok for people to be chasing earthly wealth instead. Why?
As long as they build wealth like it's a tool, and not like it's what they put their trust and faith in, I see no more problem with that than I see with people investing in a hobby or sport.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
Again, it had to do with faith.
Whether you have faith in your wealth has nothing to do with how much wealth you have. Now, if you take any random wealthy person, they could have their faith in their wealth. Yet, I see no difference from that than people who put their faith in government. Poor people can have faith in worldly things too.
Many rich people in the Bible were rewarded because they had faith in God despite their wealth.
So, I have to accept that wealth is not the issue.
Remember Jesus said it was near impossible for a camel to go through a needle, but anything with God is possible.
The key point of everything is faith. Read Hebrews 11, over half the characters in that chapter have done things we'd find unacceptable or deceitful, and even some of the actions they were praised for were deceitful (like Jacob and the inheritance), but Esau, no matter how righteous and deserving, passed up on the inheritance God offered Abraham and he is listed as unworthy.
So, when you read about these things, you have to reverse your thinking. The perception that a person's actions lead to their justification is not found in the Bible.
-
build wealth like it's a tool, and not like it's what they put their trust and faith in
Nobody, in the history of the world, has ever done that.
people who put their faith in government.
Nobody, in the history of the world, has ever done that.
-
-
So, who is going to vote for John McAfee?!
-
WTF: Arizona lawyer says Scalia can vote ‘from the grave’ to keep Supreme Court conservative
"Anti-government attorney Kory Langhofer argued over the weekend that the Supreme Court could continue to decide cases 5-4 in favor of conservatives after the death of Antonin Scalia because the deceased justice could effectively cast votes from the grave."
“There’s no Ouija board required to figure out how Justice Scalia would vote on these things, he’s already voted,” Langhofer told KPNX during a panel discussion on Sunday. “We’re at the second-to-last step in how these cases unfold when Justice Scalia died.”
“We know exactly what he thought,” Langhofer continued. “And it’s not unprincipled to say we should give affect [sic] to that.”
So it'd not be unprincipled then if the progressive Justice voted from the grave, right?
-
I think that's likely to attract unanimity from the court, just as soon as they stop laughing.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Why has this become a religion discussion? What does any sort of religion have to do with the US Supreme Court and their decisions? Those two things are completely separate.
It the problem with God-objects. Crazy people like to use them for everything. Single God-object is the worst offender, at least they should try a modular approach like Thor and Zeus.
-
Single God-object is the worst offender, at least they should try a modular approach like Thor and Zeus.
So you're planning to use a plug-and-pray approach to religion?
-
More WTF: GOP Senators have once again pledged to continue not doing their jobs for 333 days.
-
Actually, this is just you not understanding their jobs.
-
-
-
Actually, this is just you not understanding their jobs.
The Constitution says their job is to "give advice and consent," not, "bury their heads in the sand and then park their lard asses on top."
-
The Constitution says their job is to "give advice and consent," not, "bury their heads in the sand and then park their lard asses on top."
Potatoe, potato.
Never go full @fox.
-
Outright refusal to even meet the person, much less have a hearing, even when at least one said "I'm sure they'll be nice", is flat out not doing their jobs.
-
False, but I understand why you're confused.
-
They refuse to take it from a black president. It has nothing to do with their job. Their job is to take it full, but it hurts to even think about it because it is beyond their scales.[1]
They talk about the fucking "will of the people" as if people did not vote for the president, and congress is more democratically elected than the president
[1] INB4
-
-
They talk about the fucking "will of the people" as if people did not vote for the president, and congress is more democratically elected than the president
They voted for Congress more recently. And yes, they are more democratically elected. Other than that, yeah, I'm sure it's all racism.
-
Other than that, yeah, I'm sure it's all racism.
I imagine you'll get all sorts of reasons if you ask them, but it is definitely obstructionist. To refuse to consider taking actions without regard for the specific details of the action you're refusing to take is pretty much the definition of obstructionist. Which isn't to say that sometimes being obstructive never required, but it's bad to declare that you're going to do it for all candidates over an extended period of time.
It's like Congress doesn't think that the President ought to have certain powers. If that's the case, they can always do an amendment; it's not a quick thing, but it's expressly there as an option. (Oh, is it that they only think the President ought to have those powers when he's one of their boys? Life doesn't work like that.)
-
I imagine you'll get all sorts of reasons if you ask them, but it is definitely obstructionist.
Indeed. Obstructionism on the part of a particular branch was one of the original features of our system of government.
It's like Congress doesn't think that the President ought to have certain powers
Definitely. In this case, it's the power over Supreme Court nominations granted to the Senate.
-
That comic makes absolutely no sense. Why would he only wear the FBI armband in the first panel? Bullshit fucking plothole ruins EVERYTHING. Go eat a dick.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Why would he only wear the FBI armband in the first panel?
It's clearly not an armband you ignorant fuck. It's obviously an epaulet. Go stab yourself in the eye with an old pen.
