"What Would Jesus Do?"

[shostakovich]

Hi Barfle. It's in quotes.

Yes, folks, it's another session of Beethoven Bulletin Board Bush-Bashing.

"What would Jesus do?" is often a test of the "right" thing. It occurred to me that "What would Bush do?" is a great test of "wrong".

---------------------JESUS -----------------BUSH


WAGE WAR ----------------NO--------------------YES
POISON ENVIRONMENT-----NO--------------------YES
ENCOURAGE WEALTH-------NO--------------------YES
IGNORE POOR--------------NO--------------------YES
COMMUNICATION SKILLS---YES-------------------NO
ABORTION-----------------NO--------------------NO

(OK, I'll give him one)

I'd include something about homosexuality, too, but I don't recall any statement by Bush. Many of his supporters, though, seem "ready to cast the first stone". Forget forgiveness.

So (in my value system) Bush is a Christian (not) compassionate (not) conservative (not).

Shos

<small>[ 03-17-2006, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

:sitting on hands:

[barfle]

Originally posted by shostakovich:
Hi Barfle. It's in quotes.

:D

Jesus is often used as an example of compassion and wisdom, and whether or not that was actually true is of little concern to me. At least it's a way to ask "what's the wise path in this circumstance?"

As one who considers himself both secular and conservative, I am no fan of GW Bush, for reasons I've stated here ad nauseam. And my idea of compassion is based on what I do, not what I require others to do, unlike those who have the ability to legally take what is not theirs and distribute it as THEY see fit.

So, when I see Bush deciding to spend billions of dollars of money borrowed from your great-grandchildren in order to rebuild the Gulf coast, I see what I call commercial compassion, or maybe a desire to have a legacy somewhat different than LBJ's.

It really wasn't considered the fed's responsibility to bail out people beset by natural disaster until less than a hundred years ago. The enactment of the income tax made collection of revenue far too easy for governments, and gave them deeper pockets than Microsoft and Phillip Morris combined, so now people think that big brother will bail them out of any bucket of crap they happen to step in.

End of rant for now.

[lliam]

It is amazing how shortsighted and ignorant people are. This is the same argument GW won election on in 2000: there is a surplus, give the money back. Yet, there was no surplus. There was extra money in the annual budget, but the debt was closing in on 7 billion dollars with a hidden deficit that was probably more than double that (hidden in social security "loans" to the budget-yes, I realize this is not technically accurate as they are part of the same budget, but things such as increasing SS taxes to pay for SS in the future indicates a use of SS taxes for other nonSS deficit masking).

Yet, people were so shortsighted that they failed to realize the debt existed or had any importance and so ignorant that they didn't realize the impact of such huge debt on their lives in many forms, including interest rates they pay.

States and towns used to save a little "surplus" for a rainy day instead of deficit spending which costs substantially more or increasing taxes. It creates stability economically. And based on a recent report on education, southern states need to spend on education more than most.

[Shapley]

Illiam,

RE:It is amazing how shortsighted and ignorant people are. This is the same argument GW won election on in 2000: there is a surplus, give the money back. Yet, there was no surplus.

It might be shortsighted and ignorant if the Congress could be trusted to use the money to settle the debt. It doesn't work that way. The Congress (on both sides of the aisle) was very busy trying to find new and interesting ways to spend all that extra money - prescription drug benefits, increases in other entitlement programs, etc.

All of these increases, rather than being one time spending to alleviate one deficiency or another, were entitlement increases that would have been difficult or impossible to reduce or repeal when the 'good times' ceased to roll. The effect of not returning the money to the rightful owners in the form of a tax increase would be that the debt would have continued its upward climb regardless. As Haggis has already pointed out, receipts since the tax cuts were passed have risen to their highest levels in history, but the debt continues to climb. A little more than 1/3 of the U.S. budget is entitlement spending. Give Congress a large surplus to play with, and that percentage is very likely to grow.

BTW, The debt figure is currently about 8.5 trillion dollars, a figure that includes the 'hidden' intergovermental debt. Public debt is about 4.5 trillion dollars.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 03-19-2006, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by shostakovich:

---------------------JESUS ------------BUSH
POISON ENVIRONMENT-----NO---------------YES
ENCOURAGE WEALTH-------NO---------------YES
IGNORE POOR--------------NO-------------YES
COMMUNICATION SKILLS---YES---------------NO

IMHO you nailed Jesus, no pun intended, but the three yeses I left here under Bush are truly debatable. The fourth one is a so-what.

<small>[ 03-21-2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: BigJon@Work ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

I have one point to make regarding "ABORTION---NO-------------------NO". As a practicing Jew(rabbi, according to the New Testament), Jesus probably would have found abortion immoral, although there is no Jewish law regarding it beyond defining human life as specifically post natal. On that, the Old Testament is quite clear.

Of course, the other funny thing is that, in order to be a rabbi, Jesus would have to have been married(I have my money on Mary Magdalene). Jewish law is quite clear about that, too.

But then, the Biblical evidence shows Jesus would not only have been a liberal, but a socialist(the horror!

[Shapley]

RE:Apparently of universal health coverage, too. All those healings he never charged for....

I wasn't aware he was a government agency, just a generous private service provider...

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

WWJD - regulate the banking industry much more tightly. See temple, courtyard, moneychangers in...

And then there were a few remarks on the superior social classes. See pharisees et al.

I'm not sure that Jesus was much of a socialist. That would be Paul. Lawyers always go overboard when they get religon.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I'll tell you one thing Jesus would NOT do. Spend $5.99 for a plastic WWJD doodad!

[piqaboo]

Spelling police here -
thats a
"WWJDdad", ma'am.

[DavidS]

OT - just to set the record straight, without going into traditional Judaism's attitude to the founder of Christianity over the past couple of millenia:
1. Abortion of a healthy foetus when there is no perceived threat to the mother's well-being (arguably also mental, as in cases of rape or incest) is not approved by Jewish law. However, as you correctly imply, if completing the pregnancy constitutes such a threat, then the life of the mother takes priority.
2. Rabbis are EXPECTED to marry to provide an example of a healthy, Godly lifestyle, fulfilling the commandment, "Be fruitful and multiply"; but this is not a necessary condition to being ordained. The only functionary who was REQUIRED to be married was the High Priest in the Temple.

[OperaTenor]

Hi David,

Thanks for the clarification.



PS. Know any unmarried rabbis?



<small>[ 03-21-2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Of course, the other funny thing is that, in order to be a rabbi, Jesus would have to have been married(I have my money on Mary Magdalene). Jewish law is quite clear about that, too.

But then, the Biblical evidence shows Jesus would not only have been a libertarian.

I edited it for you to fix it.

We don't have any record that Jesus was ever part of the Jewish religious establishment other than as an attendee. He was called rebbe (Teacher) because when he spoke it was obvious he was intimately knowledgeable of the scriptures just as the rabbis where.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Hi David,

Thanks for the clarification.



PS. Know any unmarried rabbis?

As a matter of fact, several friends and acquaintances of mine became ordained when they were single, and (I believe most of them) married some years later. As you probably know, in the marriage market a much better catch than a rabbi is a doctor...
But, seriously, I have heard of a couple of cases of highly respected spiritual leaders who, for reasons undisclosed, never tied the knot.

[DavidS]

BJ - as far as I know, Jesus is quoted in the Talmud as giving opinions on matters of (orthodox) religious law, as a recognised authority, under the epithet "Another Sage".
I think the account of his divergence from mainstream traditional attitudes of the time and his later history also appears there in some form.

<small>[ 03-22-2006, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: DavidS ]</small>

[shostakovich]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shostakovich:

---------------------JESUS ------------BUSH
POISON ENVIRONMENT-----NO---------------YES
ENCOURAGE WEALTH-------NO---------------YES
IGNORE POOR--------------NO-------------YES
COMMUNICATION SKILLS---YES---------------NO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO you nailed Jesus, no pun intended, but the three yeses I left here under Bush are truly debatable. The fourth one is a so-what.

-----------------------------------------------------
I enjoyed the pun, BigJon, but the rest disappoints me. If the debate is WHY the "yes, yes, yes", I'm not interested. But I don't understand how you can question the truth of "yes, yes, yes". Let the debate begin.

----------------------------------------------------

We don't have any record that Jesus was ever part of the Jewish religious establishment other than as an attendee. He was called rebbe (Teacher) because when he spoke it was obvious he was intimately knowledgeable of the scriptures just as the rabbis where.

-----------------------------------------------------
What kind of history revision is this???
Dumbfounded

[Marye]

We don't have any record that Jesus was ever part of the Jewish religious establishment other than as an attendee.

What do you mean by this? Clarify please.

[BigJon@Work]

We don’t have any records of Jesus attending rabbinical vocational school. In Judaism as practiced at that time, the only way to be called a rabbi was to take many years of schooling and study of the law and the prior rabbinical teaching on the law. We don’t have any record of Jesus joining with any of the rabbinical “think tank” groups as an adult either. There were several at the time with competing philosophies and teachings. They were supported by congregants and permitted to study the law and teach it as their full-time occupation. The groups might be called sects today although that is not quite an accurate description of their divisions. Instead, the record shows that Jesus worshiped with the local congregations and confronted the full-time teachers with the errors of their teachings with a scholarly, scriptural approach. He was an outsider from the rabbinical establishment, an outlier, if you will. The people and some of the open-minded rabbis conferred on him the title rebbe as recognition of the qualities of his teaching not of his having gone through the schools. Can you show me evidence to the contrary?

There is speculation that he may have been invited to attend the schools based on his performance as a child teaching at the temple. There is other speculation is that he remained strictly a carpenter until the beginning of his ministry. No evidence of either of these has been shown.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

We don't have the seminary records of Moses, or Elijah, or any number of other prominent Jewish teachers. I'd be nervous, quibbling about the differential titles rebbe/rabbi at a two millenia remove.