Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (741305)	9/23/2013 10:50:21 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	9 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 FJB gamesmistress MulhollandDrive simplicity and 4 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577293

In any case, I get what your "logic" is. You think the Bible is more closely associated with Marxism than with capitalism simply because capitalism has no problem with those who accumulate wealth while Marxism does. I was in church yesterday (one of four or five times a year that I go) and the sermon was about this very topic. That you can't serve God and mammon at the same time. That you can't worship money and still serve God. It doesn't say that you can't make a good living or even accumulate wealth. You just can't worship it. The love of money being the root of evil...as they say. In fact, a poor person can be as guilty as a wealthy person for loving money. It's not the quantity of money that matters. It is the attitude toward it. The other part was that we should be charitable. That we should take care of our neighbors when they are in need. And I agree with this 100%. What it doesn't say is that we should be forced to be charitable or that we have the right to force others to be "charitable". This is the point that liberals just don't get, that if it is forced, it isn't charity. It is theft. Charity must be voluntary and it must come from the heart to be true charity. Liberals think that because we don't want to be forced to be charitable that we believe that there isn't a moral obligation to take care of our neighbors. They also don't understand that giving simply to alleviate their guilt at being better off than someone else, doesn't mean that the act of giving is necessarily good for the recipient. In national parks where there are bears they are very adamant about not feeding the bears. It's not because of the danger to the humans who are giving the food, it is because the bears become accustomed to getting the easy meal and soon avoid their natural food sources. This is often deadly to the bears either through being hit by cars or having to be euthanized because of becoming overly familiar with humans. Sometimes (most of the time) it is important to let people find their way. Most parents know this. The parents who don't, end up with a socially awkward 35 year old kid who lives in their basement.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (741305)	9/24/2013 9:02:51 AM
From: steve harris	2 Recommendations Recommended By Tenchusatsu TideGlider Respond to of 1577293

Maybe this will help in where cj and the left is coming from. Seems to be a FAX that went out last week.... bizpacreview.com

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (741305)	9/24/2013 10:17:54 AM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577293

He also made the point many times that just possessing things encumbered you and tied you to the physical world. Tenchu, it was this very thing, picking and choosing the things that fit out of the Bible that led to my loss of faith. If you actually read and understand the teachings of Jesus, instead of looking for justifications, you'd realize that his followers were supposed to life a life of no possessions and at the service of others, particularly the poor and the powerless. It is the owning nothing part that leans more Karl Marx than Adam Smith. The owning things in common and sharing according to each ones needs like the early Christians did is also.