kcdad

The KCDad World View Discussion Repository

297 Comments

Here it is, folks: This is the place for all things KCDad. Here you can discuss communism, KCDad-style. Or you can discuss the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by KCDad. Perhaps you want to just sit and soak in the profound teaching of KCDad himself. This is the place. Now is the time.

But from now on, if the conversation on any other post strays away from the post’s original topic into KCDad-Land (which will be determined at my sole discretion), the comments will be moved to this post for that discussion to continue (hence the “repository” moniker). I’ll leave a little note in the comments section of future posts if the discussion is redirected here.

That doesn’t mean that all of KCDad’s comments (or responses to KCDad’s comments) will be moved here. He isn’t being quarantined. This is simply an attempt to keep posts on topic. As long as the comments are related to the original topic, they’re fine. It’s only when they veer into the “communism vs. capitalism” or “The Gospel According to KCDad” or similarly-recurring motifs that they’ll be moved to this thread for further argument and development.

297 thoughts on “The KCDad World View Discussion Repository”

  1. 11bravo: Does this quote recommend a government: And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”

  2. Sharon does this recommend a government: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    We can play the quote game all day long, but that’s all it is – a game. Address the point, don’t dance around it like kcdad does. Is communism, even as a theory, a system which prescribes a particular way under which people live? Of course it is, so it is a system of government. I don’t see how your quote proves or disproves any particular point.

  3. 11bravo–First of all, do you know the source of the quote? Does the quote suggest a system under which people could choose to live?

  4. 11Bravo… does the Constitution establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for a common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity?

    Or is it just a really nice pie in the sky dream?

    Let me suggest some things to consider in formulating a response:
    1) Is there justice in our country (however you want to define it)
    2) Is there peace in our streets, our public discourse, our workplaces
    3) General welfare… ’nuff said
    4) What are the blessings of liberty that we pass on to our posterity… a multi trillion dollar debt and inflation? Or trust funds and tax free annuities?

    And what is the Constitution’s answer to these promises? Big Business or Government?

  6. Certainly NOT the first.
    The entire early history of the Israelites is communism. Why do you think they were “ruled”, if that is even the correct word , by JUDGES and not a monarch? Why the big hoopla about them wanting a King and having Saul anointed as The Messiah by Samuel or Eli or whoever?
    Oh, if you Christians only read and understood your own holy scriptures.

  8. David, please a valid argument. If you can prove Kcdad wrong, then please do. Without doing some studying, I cannot argue this one with Kcdad. I’m not at all certain that the Israelites–before they had a king–lived in a system in which they owned their goods in common. My first guess is that some Israelites acquired wealth–and may not have shared it with others. Obviously, your smiley face indicates that you do know that God had other reasons for being ticked off with Israel (you were just trying to be funny instead of presenting a believable argument)–and that God’s anger wasn’t because they lived a communistic lifestyle–if they did and I’m not at all certain that they did.

  9. kcdad, not surprisingly you missed the entire point. You see, if you look at my post just prior to the one currently in question I presented an argument that discussion of communism whether with a “c” or a “C” cannot be had without it existing within the scope of being a system of government. Sharon then presented a biblical quote that was completely irrelevant to the argument in an attempt to make some point, still unknown, so I then posted a completely irrelevant passage as well, in this case the preamble to the Constitution. Your post and random questions have nothing to do with the argument I was making to Sharon and thus I will ignore them. Sharon, are you going to address my point or not?

  10. 11Bravo: My Biblical quote from Acts 2 (as you know, I assume) has everything to do with the discussion. The system of government in effect at the time was the Roman government, was it not? Yet the early Christians were able to live in a community where they shared the fruits of their labor with each other (the implication to “all men” may even imply that they gave to others outside of their own community). Yes, it was voluntary. Yes, this early experiment with Christian communism didn’t last long. However, the implication–because the Christians set up this community as a result of Pentecost–is that the Holy Spirit had led them to the decision. My point is that the inclusion of this passage in the Bible proves that the basic idea behind communism is not repugnant to God–perhaps quite the opposite. Is there a possibility that Jesus and his disciples lived under a very similar arrangement for the years they were together?
    I don’t understand your original point that “communism whether with a “c” or a “C” cannot be had without it existing within the scope of being a system of government” because the early Christians lived under the laws of the Roman Empire–in the same way that a Christian community could practice Biblical communism in a capitalist society. At least, your point doesn’t agree with the dictionary definition of communism as “a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.” That definition of lowercase communism is not the same as the definition of Communism as the principles and practices of the Communist Party. You continue to insist that the two are one and the same–I just can’t agree. I haven’t studied Karl Marx’s theory enough to argue it–however, I do believe, in general, that the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. and Cuba usurped his theory and distorted it for their own purposes. They “redefined” communism to suit their own purposes, but their distortion does not negate the precepts of the original theory. Many groups calling themselves Christian have done the same thing–distorted Christianity so that it has no resemblance to authentic Biblical Chrisitianity–but their distortions do not negate or change what Christianity really is.

  11. “Capitalist production develops technology and the combining together of various processes into a social whole only by sapping the original resources of all wealth, the soil and the labourer.” – Marx

    Mr. kcdad, there is, perhaps, absence of this sapping of original sources within this noble, holy communism espoused, promulgated by you and the most holy Christ and his venerable Hebrew brethren?

  12. 11Bravo: I didn’t miss your point (you are not very subtle, and certainly not very original)… I went way beyond it.
    Yes, The Preamble to the Constitution is irrelevant. Many superior court judges agree with you, and even believe the Constitution itself is irrelevant.. I think it was Bush who said “The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.”
    IN CONTEXT, a discussion of the Patriot Act:
    “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

    “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

    “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

    http://www.spike.com/video/capitalism-love/3232966

    Here is a review of Moore’s new film
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/06/capitalism-love-story-review
    Moore’s conclusion? That capitalism is both un-Christian and un-American, an evil that deserves not regulation but elimination.

  14. That post just confirms that you missed the point kcdad, and as for whether I am not original I don’t think one who finishes every post with the same argument regardless of the nature of the discussion really has much credibility for that claim.

    Sharon, so you are arguing that “government” is not “a theory or system of social organization”. Then what do you define government to be? Whether communism is repugnant to God or not, I have no interest in having a debate as to what God does or doesn’t like, because no one has any proof to substantiate any rational point.

    As to your final point which I thought I already discussed. When a theory is repeatedly put into practice and ONLY shows horrible results, at some point a rational person has to assume that the theory is the source if the problem and not the implementation. Maybe enough people have been oppressed for you to reach that conclusion, but at some point it will be apparent.

  15. 11bravo: I’m sorry–I wouldn’t have used the Biblical argument if I had known you didn’t accept the Biblical account as a rational argument. I don’t mean that in any way to be critical of your belief system. My point is just that–apart from the Christian rationale–I don’t have a leg to stand on in any argument, so my arguments would certainly be pointless. Given my “belief system,” I consider my argument to be rational, but it wouldn’t be to anyone who didn’t accept the premise from which I start. And I don’t fool myself into thinking that other Christians would accept my interpretation either. However, I do believe that communism (in its simplest form but maybe not the more complex Marxist communism) can be practiced by individuals or groups even if the established government under which they live follows some other economic, social, or political system. And I do believe that some country could decide to adopt Marxist communism without adhering to the theory as practiced by the Communist Party. I doubt that any country would–but I believe it’s within the realm of possibility. I believe he hoped that England and/or the United States would do so without a revolution. I am in no way advocating that–just stating what I believe Marx states. In the meantime, I’m off to the Labor Day Parade!

  16. David =projecting As Sharon asked” “David, please a valid argument.”

    11Bravo: “I don’t think one who finishes every post with the same argument”

    The quote that finishes that post is from the Manchester Guardian… not me.

    Whether government is a “a theory or system of social organization”, isn’t the argument, (but you know that all too well). The statement by Sharon was there can be “a theory or system of social organization” that isn’t a government.

    I am sure you can figure out the distinction… well, I am not SURE.

  17. It’s ironic that kcdad attempts to distinguish Big “C” Communism and little “c” communism when he is the one that engages in anti-free market tirades. Indeed, he is a believer in Big “C” Communism, pure and simple. He’s doing what Marxists have done for decades – try to fit their 19th century beliefs into their shallow understanding of Acts 4:32-37. For the sake of those who have drunk kcdad’s Kool-aid, let’s examine this passage:

    (32) All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. (33) With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. (34) There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales (35) and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (36) Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), (37) sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

    So what can be determined about this passage?

    – There was unity among this group.

    – They believed Deuteronomy 10:14 and Psalm 50:10.

    – No one could keep silent the significance of Christ’s resurrection.

    – None one went without.

    – Christians were okay with ownership of property (see also Acts 12:12 and Colossians 4:15).

    – Proceeds from these voluntary sales were given to the apostles.

    – Money from land/home sales were not distributed equally among all believers but according to need<

    – Joseph/Barnabas from Cyprus sold a field and gave the money to the apostles.

    Acts 4:32-37 provides background to the story of Ananias and Sapphira in 5:1-11. Here is that passage

    (1) Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. (2) With is wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. (3) Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you have received for the land? (4) Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God. (5) When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. (6) Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. (7) About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. (8) Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” (9) Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look? The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also. (10) At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and buried her beside her husband. (11) Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

    So what can we determine from this passage?

    – 5:1-11 and 4:36-37 contrast good and bad ways of sharing.

    – Ananias was another Christian that owned property.

    – He and his wife Sapphira didn’t have to give all of the money to the apostles, but made it appear they had, thus the deception.

    – God does take vengeance on people who commit sinful acts, even in the Age of Grace.

    A better word for what the early Christians were doing is “communalism.” Early Christians suffered from persecution and sharing of possessions became a necessity. But such a system could not function indefinitely. Fortunately, there were some wealthy Christians that could voluntarily sell property, and give the proceeds to the apostles for distribution to the needy. Again, there is nothing in these passages to condemn free markets, or require a national health care system. “Needs” during the early church would have been food and clothing, which still required money to purchase.

  18. David: By the same token, there is also nothing in these passages that condones free markets or condemns a national health care system. Do you really believe that God–who, when he took on human form, spent most of his earthly ministry healing people–would condemn the United States for offering health care to all? Is there a chance that the opposite might be true–that God would bless this country for offering health care to all or worse yet punish the country for not caring for the “least among us.” You know–the cup of cold water given in my name could well be the health insurance given in my name.

  19. So Sharon you believe God has blessed Canada, Britain, France, and Mexico among others? The notion that we should have universal health care coverage, or that we should enact any other government policy, because it is the Christianly thing to do is just flat out wrong. Because you are then mandating everyone else in this country to adhere to your religion. If you choose to offer it through donating to your church and offering health care to the less fortunate that way, you are certainly entitled to do whatever you wish with your own money.

  20. 11bravo–Again you are right–I am most concerned about Christians who are so sold on capitalism that they never hold it up to the light. I’m quite tired right now, so I am not prepared to respond to your concerns. However, I completely understand your point–and do not want policy enacted because it is the “Christian” thing to do. I am just reacting more to the right-wing Christians who stand against health care for all–and claim that their view is compatible with Christianity–I disagree. You have other reasons for opposing it–I can’t argue that your view is wrong.

  21. Sharon,

    I do stand for health care for all…as long as one pays for it themselves. The only exception I make is for those who because of a disability, legitimately cannot work for a living. Sharon, you’re a capitalist or “free marketer” whether you know it or not. And kcdad, bless his Communist heart, is a capitalist or “free marketer” whether he knows it or not (unless he’s quit his job tonight, and has shared his possessions with everyone).

    As for biblical support for “capitalism” (free markets), read in Genesis 41 about Pharaoh’s dream of ugly cows eating the fat cows. Joseph interpreted the dream for Pharaoh and advised a very un-Communist, pro-capitalist plan: During the seven years of abundance, a fifth of the grain should be stored in the cities and held in reserve until needed during the seven years of famine. Genesis 41:49 describes the stored grain:

    Joseph stored up huge quantities of grain, like the sand of the sea; it was so much that he stopped keeping records because it was beyond measure.

    Genesis 41:56-57 describes the seven years of famine:

    When the famine had spread over the whole country, Joseph opened the storehouses and sold grain to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe throughout Egypt. And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world.

    Now notice, Joseph sold the grain. He didn’t barter it or distribute it equally. Biblical support for “capitalism” (free markets) comes down to one thing: God has given all of us a free will. He didn’t intend for us to live under the microscope of a huge government bureacracy. In fact, when Israel demanded a King, God told the prophet Samuel to warn them what a king would do to them (Samuel 8:10-18):

    Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourself will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

    Guaranteeing “health care for all” can only be done through a huge government bureaucracy, which will not be immune to human failings, corruption and the desire to control one’s behavior. For all of its flaws (mostly unnecessary government regulation, the rest human nature), the system we now have in place is the best in the world.

  22. David, what is ironic is that you intentionally misquote sources to make your arguments appear that they come from someplace other than your imagination.

    Where did you get your PARAPHRASE of verses 32 on?
    32And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but (AX)all things were common property to them.

    That is NEW AMERICAN STANDARD. Here is Young’s Literal:

    32and of the multitude of those who did believe the heart and the soul was one, and not one was saying that anything of the things he had was his own, but all things were to them in common.

    Do you HAVE to be so disingenuous?

    “Joseph interpreted the dream for Pharaoh and advised a very un-Communist, pro-capitalist plan: During the seven years of abundance, a fifth of the grain should be stored in the cities and held in reserve until needed during the seven years of famine.”

    Apparently you have NO IDEA what communism or capitalism is. The government storing excess grain to be distributed to the people in time of famine is certainly NOT a capitalist principle. The true capitalist would tell everyone to save up their own. Whether it was sold or given away is not the point of the story except that people from FOREIGN countries were coming to buy grain… Jacob’s sons came from Canaan. Why would Egypt give grain to Canaan?

    Your Joseph story is about EGYPT, not Israel. Israel, the nation didn’t even exist when this story occurred.

    As for Israel wanting a King, you are right. God didn’t want a government over Israel. He wanted Judges. (But I already mentioned that a week ago… glad you caught up) The King he describes sounds a lot like the Bush administration.

    You are afraid of government messing up health care, but don’t care that insurance companies and investment firms have already done so?
    Don’t you understand that insurance is a fraud? You give $100 to a company that spends 20% of it on their big buildings and salaries and then you expect to get 1000s back when you are ill? The only reason insurance works is because they refuse every claim submitted to them by people they suspect can not afford to fight them, or who might die by delaying the approval for a few months.. It is the insurance companies RIGHT NOW telling people that they are going to die because their condition isn’t covered. Is the insurance companies RIGHT NOW that are telling doctors what procedures they can do and which tests THEY MUST run.

    WAKE UP!

    My daughter had to be born through induced labor 2 weeks early because our insurance through my wife’s employer declared her pregnancy to be a prior condition when he employer decided to change companies when she was 6 months pregnant and the date the new insurance company took over was a week before my daughter was due.

  23. “And kcdad, bless his Communist heart, is a capitalist or “free marketer” whether he knows it or not (unless he’s quit his job tonight, and has shared his possessions with everyone).”

    Communists dont’ work? Only Capitalists work?

    [Portion of comment deleted by blog owner]

  24. David: I am neither anti or pro capitalism. I just accept it for what it is. The difference between you and me is that I don’t equate capitalism with Christianity or believe that it is the only system under which Christianity can flourish. I do believe it is the Christian’s job to be a watchdog against the evils of any or all government. Because we live in a country where we are relatively free to point out the inequities, etc., of government, I believe that Christians should do so–especially, when the government hurts the people who do not have the power to fight for themselves (legally, etc.). There were many Christians who did just that (and many who did not) in the fight against slavery in this country–and later during the conflicts in the Civil Rights era. Now–all of a sudden–I’m hearing many right-wing Republicans screaming about what they perceive as the evils of government–even to the point where they don’t want the President of the United States to speak to school children. However, these same people completely ignored and even condoned evils under previous administrations (especially, Republican administrations)–and there have always been evils to point out and against which to protect our country. David, as Christians, shouldn’t we be spending our time doing and saying things that will help bring people to Christ–instead of praising the virtues of Christianity. Capitalism could die tomorrow but Christianity won’t die with it.
    About all your Old Testament examples–do you really believe that any of that proves anything at all about capitalism–the economic system of capitalism didn’t even exist–wasn’t even thought of in the Old or New Testament.

  26. NV, I completely agree with you.

    Sharon, I think the only person who is equating Christianity with any form of government or economy is you. I don’t think anyone else in this argument has said, or believes the two are one and the same. I do however think that capitalism is the economic system best suited to allow for free will, which God thought to be a pretty important concept if I remember correctly.

  27. 11Bravo – Then I guess you haven’t sat in the pews of conservative Christian churches–and you aren’t listening to Glen Beck. And then here you go bringing up another theological point that probably isn’t of any interest to you. My own reading of the Bible is that (as portrayed in the Adam and Eve story) God gave them freewill to make one of two choices: obey God or disobey God. That was the extent of the choices offered. A close reading of the Bible would indicate that once a person makes the choice to obey God, the choices become a bit more limited in that God’s will becomes the guiding force in a Christian’s life–no freewill any more (except when disobedience comes into play). You know the “Not my will but thine be done” concept. I’m not sure that the Bible offers any choices about economic systems or makes any statements about which one best suits Christianity–other than the suggestion in Acts 2 about owning possessions in common (and it was just a choice, I believe). However–and I don’t know that we have ever made this point clear–our democractic form of government does seem the most suited for the freedom to worship as we choose, etc. I definitely favor the U.S. because of that form of government–but couldn’t the country still be democractic and at the same time some combination of both socialism and capitalism. I think these three could be compatible.

  28. We already have a combination of socialism and capitalism… we call it a mixed economy.

    A “Mixed” Economy
    A “mixed” economy is a mix between socialism and capitalism. It is a hodgepodge of freedoms and regulations, constantly changing because of the lack of principles involved. A mixed-economy is a sign of intellectual chaos. It is the attempt to gain the advantages of freedom without government having to give up its power.

    A mixed-economy is always in flux. The regulations never produce positive results, because they always force people to act against their own interests. When a particular policy fails, it is propped up by other regulations in the hopes that more control will produce better results. Sometimes the results are so destructive they must either be removed, or the people must be violently oppressed to make them accept it.
    http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_MixedEconomy.html

    Economic and political systems are based upon the exploitation of self interest: either elevating or suppressing it. Capitalist systems extol the virtues of self interest while calling upon the working classes to subordinate their interests to that of the corporation or government. Socialist systems call for the suppression of self interest in relation to the interest of the community as a whole.
    The clear difference is that Socialist systems are inherently more honest, consistent and predictable. Capitalist systems are based on a fundamental lie. In Socialist systems the government exists to work for the people, while in a Capitalist system, the government exists to work for the corporation. (It is not a coincidence that the word corporation, which means BODY, was co-opted by Capitalists to imply they were the community.)

    The awful truth is that ANY government (if it runs on money) can not exist without capitalist and socialist tendencies, and all governments progress towards fascism. The United States has long ago given in to the fascist need to promote corporations over people. (…and yet we celebrate Labor Day. How ironic)

    Ask yourself this question: Why do corporations exist?

    Capitalism
    An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
    Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.

    Ask yourself a question: Which individual right is necessary?
    A hint is : Which individual right (Natural Rights of Man, John Locke) was intentionally left out of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

  29. kcdad wrote: [portion of comment deleted by blog owner]

    What relief…and for a minute there, I was afraid you liked me 🙂

  30. kcdad wrote: We already have a combination of socialism and capitalism…we call it a mixed economy.

    So…do you prefer the status quo or full socialism?

  31. Sharon Crews wrote: David: I am neither anti or pro capitalism. I just accept it for what it is. The difference between you and me is that I don’t equate capitalism with Christianity or believe that it is the only system under which Christianity can flourish.

    That’s awfully presumptive of you, don’t you think? I never claimed such a thing. Kcdad openly equates communism with Christianity and someone needed to correct him, not by implying Christianity equated capitalism, but to explain that such a system of economic freedom is not counter to Christianity.

    Now–all of a sudden–I’m hearing many right-wing Republicans screaming about what they perceive as the evils of government–even to the point where they don’t want the President of the United States to speak to school children.

    They can’t stop him, and they know it. Then again, the Dems did the same thing to George H. W. Bush in October 1991. They say payback is a female dog.

    However, these same people completely ignored and even condoned evils under previous administrations (especially, Republican administrations)–and there have always been evils to point out and against which to protect our country.

    Be specific. I hate generic assertions like that (And I’m sure your examples will include predictable left-wing slurs such as “Dick Cheney”, Karl Rove”, “George W Bush”, “Halliburton”, “no WMDs in Iraq”, etc.).

    David, as Christians, shouldn’t we be spending our time doing and saying things that will help bring people to Christ–instead of praising the virtues of Christianity.

    I think you meant Capitalism, correct?

    Capitalism could die tomorrow but Christianity won’t die with it.

    What could kill Capitalism in America will also persecute Christians.

    About all your Old Testament examples–do you really believe that any of that proves anything at all about capitalism–the economic system of capitalism didn’t even exist–wasn’t even thought of in the Old or New Testament.

    Again, the basis of “capitalism” is freedom, and God gave us a free will. It has far more to do with “to obey or disobey.” I’ve already given Biblical support for economic freedom. They confused and bothered kcdad so much he called me an idiot!

    The example of Egypt is a good one. Yes, it was the Egyptian government that stored the grain, but the nation’s farmers raised it. Yes, the government took a fifth of the grain to store, but they had abundance for seven years. The point kcdad missed (and I clearly made) was that the grain was sold and not bartered or distributed equally, like he would have done.

    The example of God (through Samuel) warning the Israelites that having a king would mean the loss of property and sons and daughters shows that He intended His people to be free.

  32. David, yes, I did mean the virtues of capitalism, not Christianity–thanks for the correction. Once again, I’m going to try to make the decision to stay away from this discussion and just continue to respond to C.J.’s blog (which may or may not bring some of these subjects back up). You and I, David, probably are close to agreement on so many theological subjects, but not on the political ones, etc. We need to concentrate on our like faith and agree to disagree on some of these other things. Likewise, kcdad and I will continue to agree on some of the political things but probably disagree on the theological. That’s life. I think our freedom to discuss these issues says something about the land we live in–I never mean to imply that I don’t love my country–pride, maybe not so much–but live, yes. Love it enough to offer suggestions for improvement.

  33. David… I do like you… [portion of comment deleted by blog owner].

    Status quo? Are you talking about inadequate health care, inadequate immigration reform, inadequate jobs, inadequate housing… or are you talking about runaway inflation, outrageous corporate greed, usurious monetary polices, and one the greatest gaps in control of wealth in the history of mankind?

    GO ahead and correct me… show me how Christianity… let me be more specific, show me how the teachings of Jesus can be compatible with Capitalism. Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus.

    “October 1991” Source?
    “Be specific. I hate generic assertions” says the King of them.

    “instead of praising the virtues of Christianity. ” She meant what she wrote, that you don’t understand it is not surprising.

    “What could kill Capitalism in America will also persecute Christians.”
    (“Be specific. I hate generic assertions” says the King of them.”)

    “the basis of “capitalism” is freedom” … no, the basis of capitalism is property.

    “was sold and not bartered”
    SOLD to whom?

  34. Sorry, kcdad, I did mean “capitalism,” in that particular statement. Perhaps you thought I meant “Christianity” as some practice it–I could agree with that interpretation, but I was making following Christ synonymous with Christianity.

  36. Tuesday, September 8, 2009
    The source is dated 2009. Did you miss that?

    ‘Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance.” OR THIS?

    Please, David. Spare yourself anymore embarrassment and begin posting another another name…

  38. Yes, kcdad, it is dated 2009 because the writer of the article researched Bush 41’s October 1, 1991 speech and found out that the Democrats treated it like a scandal. Yes, the controversy came afterward, but that’s irrelevant. The fact is there was still controversy over a GOP president’s speech to a classroom. If it would make you happy, I could go find out what the local paper printed on the subject. Of course, you know that’s unnecessary.

    Please, David. Spare yourself anymore embarrassment and begin posting another another name…

    At least I post under my own name…why don’t you be a man and use your’s? 🙂

  41. and what exactly was objectionable about Obama’s speech to the students….????????

    And don’t tell me there were transcripts available BEFORE the speech when everyone was criticizing it.

    What universe do you live in? The “objections” were not political philosophy at all, but about Reagan and Bush using the speech to promote a political agenda. What political agenda is promoted by encouraging kids to stay in school??????

    Reagan was talking about his economic and foreign policies. Bush… who knows what he ever was talking about other than A New World Order.

  42. There was nothing wrong with the actual speech Obama gave, but if you’ll recall, it originally included a “help the president” assignment, which sparked the controversy. That part of it was dropped/modified before the actual speech was given, but was the primary source of the contoversy. If George W. Bush did the same thing, you’d yell, “indoctrination!”

  43. Oh yeah, asking for “help” is sign of not “being a man” isn’t it?

    INdoctrination…. IN-doctrination. Instilling one’s doctrine into another. Asking for advice is more along the lines of EX-doctrination.

    He was giving the students a voice in their country. I doubt if he was going to take any of their elementary school advice, but hearing the voices of the people is what our government REPRESENTATIVES are supposed to.

    [Portion of comment deleted by blog owner]

  44. kcdad,

    It’s obvious you’ve lost the debate and you know it. Calling me a [deleted] and an [deleted] would normally demonstrate a lack of common sense, but then again, you never had any. Instead, you’ve clung to a failed ideology, and vainly attempted to defend it here.

  45. “Calling me a [deleted] and an [deleted] would normally demonstrate a lack of common sense,”… Normally I would agree, and I would normally refrain from that and reserve those observations for people like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly… or yeah and Ann Coulter…. but not in your case.

    You have shown a total lack of reason, logic, compassion, fairness, a total ignorance of history and I have little patience to humor your ideological infancy.

    Perhaps I should have have said you do show the ability to think for yourself, or to think in more than one dimension at a time.

    Please visit my blog where I addressed your way of thinking.
    http://kcdad.livejournal.com/#post-kcdad-6643

  46. David, I don’t agree with many of your political philosophies, but I do believe you have shown reason, logic, compassion, fairness and a knowledge of history. I believe that we can disagree without calling each other names, and that we can respect the others point of view, without agreeing with them.

    Wow – I barely beat CJ to the last post before comments were turned off- and I noticed we now get 60 minutes to edit our comments. Hmm, what to do…what to do…?

    CJ, I again commend you for this noble effort. For my part, I apologize for some of the comments I made (though you did sort of give the go ahead 🙂 ) Some of it was a lot of fun though- I especially liked nontimendum’s clever humor. I do think kcdad has some beneficial points of view, but simply put, the ends do not justify the means.

  47. I see this island has turned into Lord of the Flies. Experiment failed. Comments will be turned off. From now on, instead of banishing off-topic comments (as defined in the original post) to this thread, they will just be unceremoniously deleted.

    If you want to talk about communism vs. capitalism or kcdad’s world view, please discuss it over at kcdad’s blog.

Comments are closed.