Thread: Free Trade vs Protectionism

Originally Posted by USCitizen

I am a modern ordthodox Jew who knows the Torah back and forth (studying for about 35 years, chapter and verse in Hebrew) and has read TNT (KJV) at least 6 times.

:rolleyes:

Anybody who claims that either Judaism or Chritianity is based on individualism is talking out of complete idelogical ignorance.

Which is not what I am asserting. The Judeo-Christian worldview is based on the individuals relationship with God and the community of believers and the world (or the non-believer). While many of the teachings of both Judaism and Christianity very clearly relate to the community it is always on the basis of the individuals relationship with the community. You cannot have a community of human beings without first acknowledging the individuals who make up that community.

And do me a favor, don't try tossing out an out-of-context verse or part of a verse to further prove your ideology.
And I've stated already, the only time TNT wants individualism is in prayer.

If by TNT you mean “The New Testament” that would be false. For example the commandment, “Thou shall not murder,” while it does express a community standard, it is directed at the individual, not the community as a whole. Only an individual can refrain from committing murder.

I would much rather prefer an honest Libertarian (a few in my community) or self-serving, greedy narcissist Republican (many in my community), or a lazy arsed Liberal (a few in my community), than a psuedo-intellectual who uses God's word to man to justify the desires of his/her id.

Not even Steve is using “God’s words” to justify the desires of his id. The problem is that he attempts to use “God’s word” to justify his neo-Marxist Progressive ideology. Again, do a little research into liberation theology or Black liberation theology. Its basically Marxism in Christian drag. One of the more absurd claims of neo-Marxists is that Jesus was the first communist and that he sought to establish a communist social order long before the necessary social conditions were set (necessary if you buy into the Marxist theories of the progress of history).

I not only find it disrespectful, I find it disgusting.

:rolleyes: Your disgust is misplaced.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by USCitizen

And as is stated many times, individuals who opt out are "cut off".
Do you know what it means?

:rolleyes:

I still have yet to see where the Bible condones being egregarious.

Ah, who on the forum has attempted to use the Bible to condone offensive behavior?

Sadly, using the Bible is not a game.

In this case the ones who are trying to play the Bible are leftist Progressives, not conservatives or libertarians.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by USCitizen

You're missing the point.

No he isn't.

It IS true that an individual, in both Judaism and Christianity, chooses for themselves whether or not to have a connection to God, but you have in no way negated either beliefs as non-communal.

It isn't just the individual’s choosing to have a connection to God, it is about an individuals on going relationship with God after that choosing and the individuals relationship with the community. At each point it begins with the individual and God.

Saul of Tarsus, or Paul, as he changed his name, only wanted to drop the commandments of action that were not charitable.

Yep. And that charity was to be done by the individual. Sure individuals were encouraged to act together, but it, again, begins with the individual.

If you read the Red Letter Bible, where the words of Jesus are in red ink, Jesus was incredibly critical that the rabbinical leaders of the time were NOT enforcing the communal aspect of Judaism; in many ways he was indeed correct.
Paul's epistles, in fact, deal with how to encourage, via positive and/or negative, reinforcement of communal charity and interaction.

Neither Jesus or Paul ever demanded that government take up the responsibility of charity. It was and has been the responsibility of the individual to engage in charitable works. This is the theological basis for the focus on 'good works' in Catholicism. I asked before for anyone to provide the scriptural command for the individual to hand over their coat to the government so the government can hand out pants to those it deems worthy of its largess. No one has been able to do so, though a couple tried.

I didn't intend for the word canard to be derogatory to anyone on this forum, only towards those with web-sites who spit out non-contextual verses to "prove" their point.

Steve, to my knowledge, does not have a web-site, but he has no problem spiting out “non-contextual verses” in his silly attempt to prove that “God” really wants us all to be nice little neo-Marxist Progressive leftist.

You notice I don't get involved when people discuss chemistry, mechanics and accounting because I not qualified.

I’m pretty sure that’s not all you are not qualified to discuss, but hey that never stopped me so why should it stop you?

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by USCitizen

BTW, since when is the command to love your neighbor one of the 10.
And you just stated THE collective commandment of loving your neighbor or does it mean you should love yourself because you're your own neighbor?

Of course I'm no an expert.

You sure are not an expert. I did not say love your neighbor was one of the 10. That is why I put it into a separate sentence.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

And that circular logic post above is the proof ... The 10 Commandments do not apply to collectives but individuals. The commandment to love your neigbor as yourself does not apply to collectives but individuals. Jesus famous answer about giving to Ceasar what is Caesar's and giving to God what is God's does not apply to collectives but individuals. The entire reason for Christianity is the salvation of a single soul not a group. Christianity demands works of individuals not collectives.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

You're missing the point.
It IS true that an individual, in both Judaism and Christianity, chooses for themselves whether or not to have a connection to God, but you have in no way negated either beliefs as non-communal.

You are just completely wrong. "Thou shall not steal" and "Thou shall not covet" are in opposition to the communal concept. The wall is not only regarding other's property, etc but for YOU personally and individually to obey that wall.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

It isn't just the individual’s choosing to have a connection to God, it is about an individuals on going relationship with God after that choosing and the individuals relationship with the community.

Have you noticed USCitizen confounds community with communal? He willfully misinterprets what the word of God is then condemns others for actually applying what it says. The correlation of this Leftists use with the Bible and the Constitution cannot be understated.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

JL,
just as a curiousity...
Have you stuidied the works of John Locke with the same depth and breadth as you have studied the Bible?

I've studied John Locke with the utmost depth and breath, obviously. My study of the thoughts leading to the US Constitution surpass my study of the Bible by a long stretch. My study of the Bible has so far been mainly limited to the practical applications such as we are discussing now. Have you ever heard of Beth Takune?

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

You cannot have a community of human beings without first acknowledging the individuals who make up that community.

Correct; you either belong or you are free to go your own way, but you cannot use either religion to justify Libertariansm.
I have no problem with Libertarians who simply state what they are.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

If by TNT you mean “The New Testament” that would be false. For example the commandment, “Thou shall not murder,” while it does express a community standard, it is directed at the individual, not the community as a whole. Only an individual can refrain from committing murder.

The Roman Empire did not commit murder to acquire possessions, territory, land?
The command is stated in the singular because each and every person is responsible.
If the plural was stated, it would be construed that murder by two or more individuals is OK.
If two people commit a murder they each get their own trial.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Not even Steve is using “God’s words” to justify the desires of his id. The problem is that he attempts to use “God’s word” to justify his neo-Marxist Progressive ideology. Again, do a little research into liberation theology or Black liberation theology. Its basically Marxism in Christian drag. One of the more absurd claims of neo-Marxists is that Jesus was the first communist and that he sought to establish a communist social order long before the necessary social conditions were set (necessary if you buy into the Marxist theories of the progress of history).

Where does Steve state Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs.
He is merely stating a Biblical statement providing the cardinality of concern...
Neighborhood, town or city, nation.
Neither religion touts Marx's communism in any way whatsoever.
Once again, today's non-Libertarianism and non-Conservativatism does not necessarity equate to communism.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

[SIC] Who on the forum has attempted to use the Bible to condone offensive behavior?

There are occasional postings, one a day or two ago, that tried to use scripture to support the free market over national concern concept.
From a Biblical standpoint, neither religion states this.
In fact, King Solomon's sons took this route, along with excessive taxation, and split the nation into the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel and that resulted in the 70 year Babylonian exile.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

No he isn't.



It isn't just the individual’s choosing to have a connection to God, it is about an individuals on going relationship with God after that choosing and the individuals relationship with the community. At each point it begins with the individual and God.



Yep. And that charity was to be done by the individual. Sure individuals were encouraged to act together, but it, again, begins with the individual.



Neither Jesus or Paul ever demanded that government take up the responsibility of charity. It was and has been the responsibility of the individual to engage in charitable works. This is the theological basis for the focus on 'good works' in Catholicism. I asked before for anyone to provide the scriptural command for the individual to hand over their coat to the government so the government can hand out pants to those it deems worthy of its largess. No one has been able to do so, though a couple tried.



Steve, to my knowledge, does not have a web-site, but he has no problem spiting out “non-contextual verses” in his silly attempt to prove that “God” really wants us all to be nice little neo-Marxist Progressive leftist.



I’m pretty sure that’s not all you are not qualified to discuss, but hey that never stopped me so why should it stop you?

tashi deleks,

M

I apologize of many of this postings statements were a result of my being unclear.
You are correct in most cases.
Taxation is meant to maintain an infrastruture and some level of care for the mentally and physically challenged.
In Israel, for instance, charity is not tax deductable yet those incapable of caring for themselves are cared for.

The majority of non-Biblical nationally ordained taxation was geared towards the maintenance of the Temple and the infrastructure to the Temple and between towns to support commerce.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

You sure are not an expert. I did not say love your neighbor was one of the 10. That is why I put it into a separate sentence.

I apologize for that.
Some people on this forum, usually NOT the Econonics threads, throw out verses that they haven't even bothered to copy and paste correctly.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

You are just completely wrong. "Thou shall not steal" and "Thou shall not covet" are in opposition to the communal concept. The wall is not only regarding other's property, etc but for YOU personally and individually to obey that wall.

It's not, "Thou shall not steal", it's "Thou shall not kidnap".
It's not, "Thou shall not covert", it's "Thou shall not plan to acquire".
It's not, "Thou shall not kill", it's "Thou shall not murder".
The 1st through 5th of the Big 10 deal with man's relationship to God.
The 6th through 10th of the Big 10 deal with man's relationship to Man.

How can one have a society unless each and every individual has not been addressed by God to behave accordingly?

In fact, these verses prove no political persuasion other than good old common sense.
Even if you live in the middle of nowhere, you ar getting credit for not trabsgressing an obvious social moor.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Have you noticed USCitizen confounds community with communal? He willfully misinterprets what the word of God is then condemns others for actually applying what it says. The correlation of this Leftists use with the Bible and the Constitution cannot be understated.

I have no idea what you mean.
I have no problem with the fact that you are a Libertarian; you simply can't use the Bible to justify your world view of no rules applying to society other than the protection of assets.
Communal responsibilty may indeed be disdainful in your mind; that's your business.