Losing Is the New Winning
What we’re now seeing is the tug-of-war internecine struggle between the power-seeking Islamic militants who still live by ancient Arabian codes, and their Marx-inspired Western partners trying to rein them in and use the victimhood/sympathy technique instead. Back and forth, back and forth, as the rest of the world watches in disgust: Violent terrorist acts and declarations of supremacy are interspersed with poorly acted passion plays of victimhood. Do the Islamists really expect us to permanently grant them the role of victim when half the time they’re the victimizers?
Personally, I’m tired of the game, specifically because I know it’s a game. Their real goal is victory and dominance by any means, and I’m not fooled when they use our own cultural norms to deceive us.
Rather than posting a variety of short videos documenting the incitements and failed attempts at victimhood-posturing by the Gaza flotilla militants, I strongly encourage readers to view this clip by Shraga Simmons of MediaGoliath which not only incorporates much of the video evidence into one handy package, but also crisply explains the win-by-losing victimhood strategy explained in this essay:
The problem with quoting the Bible is that people quote scriptures out of context. If you only read Matthew Chap 19:21,23(not 24) then it seems to say that the “rich” will find it tough to go to heaven. However, if you read Matthew Chap19:20-30 here is what you get:
20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
27Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
Verse 26 is key: Jesus recognizes that it is impossible for a man to simply give up all of his wealth in order to follow him and look for salvation, but with God “all things are possible”. If a rich person accumulates wealth, but does not distribute it, but gives jobs to those who need them (as Chapter 20 talks about) he will find is way into the Kingdom of God:
1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.
2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3“About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing.
4He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’
5So they went.
“He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing.
6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7“‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9“The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius.
10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius.
11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.
12‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13“But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius?
14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you.
15Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
I’m not so much a Christian man, but when I was a Christian man I did learn that when you are quoting Scripture it is important to read the words surrounding the passage you are quoting so that you may give it full context.
A Christian in need is a Christian indeed.
But, anyhoo. What I get out of the Bible regarding the rich is that it’s much harder to NOT get attached to earthly things and being ‘of the world’ with all of the creature comforts when living in the lap o’ luxury. Also, if a person has all of their primal needs met would they still humble themselves enough to need God? Do the rich have a harder time recognizing their own souls?
What is wealth? What is poverty?
What is happiness? What is sadness?
Who is an enemy? Who is a friend?
What is easy? What is difficult?
Who is God? Who am I?
Do we believe or are we deceived?
Do we merely exist day to night and back again until we croak whilst hoping all the while that we can squeeze as much ‘enjoyment’ out of this frail human life as possible before it’s all over?
I believe there is more than this mortal bondage and I’ll never be worthy of heaven except for the redemption of Christ’s blood.
Chris Bolts, the extra “context” quotes you just gave only seem to reinforce the essay’s contention that original Christianity was about uplifting the downtrodden and disparaging the wealthy. It seems the essay’s author did not even give the most pointed quotes, which you just did. For example, “30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first,” is basically a restatement of the essay’s thesis that losers will be winners and winners will be losers, at least in early-days Christian theology. And rewarding the unproductive workers with the same pay as productive workers seems pretty Marxist to me, too.
And then there’s “29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.” Once again, that reinforces the point.
When you say ‘Verse 26 is key”, that is YOUR interpretation and attempt to take things out of context. Why are not the other verses key? It seems to me that the verses giving hope and comfort to the oppressed and dissing the rich far outnumber any “key” verses which may imply that the rich have an equal shot at heaven.
No, it does not reinforce that context at all. Also, this is a favorite one for the Marxists, because it’s one of the very few passages in the Bible that can seem to validate their views if taken out of context.
First of all, the quoted translation is awful. It’s not even a “thought-for-thought” translation, much less a “word-for-word”. It’s more like a summary.
Here’s the ESV translation of Matthew 19:
16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Jesus is essentially forcing a contradiction in this man’s belief system. He says “there is only one who is good,” namely God. However, the man believes that his own works are sufficient to claim himself as “good” and that he has perfectly followed the law. So Christ calls him on his pride and says to sell everything his has, not because the man’s rich, but because the man’s a LIAR. Notice the last of the crimes in verse 17, “bearing false witness.” This guy has the gall to say that he has never committed a lie, when he’s doing so at that very moment.
Also, related to Chris Bolts Sr.’s post:
Matthew 20 (ESV):
11And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house,
12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’
13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?
14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you.
15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’
16 So the last will be first, and the first last.”
Please, tell me how this reinforces a world view of Marxism. Christ is speaking about heaven and how no one can work their way to it by their own pride, actions, or following the law–Heaven and redemption is a free gift where all are given equally so that “the last will be first, and the first last.” Both of these passages are interrelated, because Christ is showing that effectively no one is better in the eyes of God. Justification is granted only by God (verses 12,14), not because of any actions that a person accomplishes. To confuse Jesus’ “Kingdom of Heaven” with a philosophy of world government is either opportunistic cherry-picking or an ignorance of the Christian faith. As an aside, the parable directly preceding this one is how no one who is not like a child will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus, once again, is discussing how the presumptions of being “deserving” of Heaven will not cut it. Only if a person is completely innocent and dependent upon God’s grace like a child, will they be able to accept the free gift of salvation. The crux of the matter is that human pride is an obstacle to accepting a gift like a humbled child, hence the difficult of prideful rich persons entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
Even if it were speaking about earthly government, how do verses 13 and 15 jive with a Marxist view, given that the landowner is determining what to do with his own property?
Thank you.
Aaron, Excellent analysis.
In Christ’s time, who were the richest and most influential of the Jews? Not the run-of-the-mill businessman, but the most learned and holy men. Christ railed against the disconnect between the religious leaders’ concern for earthly possessions and the people who most needed their help. He saw the top dogs in his society not doing what they were supposed to be doing–keeping the law as God had instructed. And that law included caring for all the community, not just those deemed “good” or “clean” and ostracizing those not so fortunate. If there is any equality Christ was seeking from man, it was equality of love and care for each other–not the redistribution of wealth.
So when Christ says the first shall be last and the last shall be first, he is calling for humanity to help those first who need it most; and those who need it least should pitch in and help, too, but he doesn’t tell them they must give up all they own to do so.
The key word is “many”. The word, all, is not used.
Delia has it right. Wealth is temporal, as is life, and you can’t take your wealth with you. Christ is more concerned for the eternal life of men, rather than the temporary one here on Earth.
Don’t let making money,and holding on to it, be your god, and don’t allow your family members and friends influence you (hold you back)when it comes to doing the right thing.Don’t ever let things stop you from doing some good.
Anyway, this message is based on individual choices made with free will and it isn’t a one size fits all sorta thing. Wealth has allowed people to do great things for others and poverty doesn’t assure goodness by any means. It is all based on a personal relationship with God.
There is an additional message imo-don’t be constantly concerned about “fairness” and if the other guy cut a deal better than the one you made earlier in the day.
The Hebrew version of this sentiment can be found in Ecclesiastes 1:2 ” הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים אָמַר קֹהֶלֶת, הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים הַכֹּל הָבֶל.” This mentality comes after much introspection and is perhaps at odds with most popular interpretations of Islam in the world.
The fact is that social dogma has largely replaced Christianity as the preeminent world view on most of the European continent that I am familiar with. To the extent that Europeans rely upon Christianity to base their Weltanschauung, it is largely to quote these portions of the “social” gospel intended to support large wealth redistribution schemes. Ironically, a lot of the support for Moslem immigration has come from the various state supported churches, but perhaps the strangest part is that these very same people tend to marginalize truly westernized Moslems in favour of their Islamist counterparts. I have often discussed this with a very secular Kurdish friend of mine. We largely agree that Europe lost its moral compass long ago and doesn’t really have a stable orientation point to guide their decision making. This is why you have extreme Marxists and Atheists siding with the theocratic, homophobic, misogynistic, Islamists of Hamas against the largely secular, socialist Israelis. This decision clearly makes no sense except that perhaps Marxists and Islamists both despise the current world order and the Marxists mistakenly believe they can ride the Islamic wave to a communal future. It also explains why Europeans are largely unable to care about conflicts between groups of the downtrodden. Millions killed in the Congo? the Majority know nothing about it. Darfur, Schmarfur; there just simply isn’t anyone in the conflict that fits the European bill of victim or villain, so they largely leave it be.
That’s certainly a helpful quote. Thank you.
The author of the post way oversimplifies Christianity’s origins as well as its Scriptures, but the basic idea of the essay other than that is, I think, sound.
@ Montjoie. I think Zombie is spot on in the analysis, but there are types of Christianity that don’t interpret those verses the same way. This interpretation has taken root in a lot of leftist enclaves such as San Fran and Britain for example. In Europe, a lot of the sentiment is a relic of the noble savage approach to colonization; they have taken the idea of the permanent underling and elevated them to an unassailable status, even when it is overwhelmingly clear that they are in the wrong. One of the best examples of this a German book by Jürgen Todenhöfer entitled “Warum tötest du Zaid?” This follows on the heels of his highly acclaimed “Wer weint schon um Abdul und Tanaya?:Die irrtümer des Kreuzzugs gegen den Terror.” (Both titles are respectively “Why do you kill, Zaid?” and “Who is crying about Abdul and Tanaya? Errors in the crusade against terror”.) You can see this mentality at work that seeks to absolve certain people of their crimes and lay them in the lap of the West whether they belong there or not. In this world, the “noble savage” is not responsible for his behaviour, and former communists and sympathizers see Islam as the next wave of “downtrodden proletariate” that will reverse the modern world order. Politics does make strange bedfellows I suppose.
A lot of this mentality you can see with regards to Israel. Think about the phrase that is so common now when discussing Israeli military actions: disproportionate force. Since one side is so obviously more advanced than the other, most people ignore the fact that Hizbullah and Hamas both started each of the wars they’ve been involved in recently, all use human shields, all aim to kill civilians, yet they are considered the “underdogs” and Israel is punished for being too successful. I think they have been too reticent to use the force they do have largely out of concern for civilians on the other side. I know that if my house was near a missile barrage, no matter how crude the missiles were, I’d want an overwhelmingly disproportionate force in response. This is exactly like the soccer game; the more Arabs get killed, the more they “win.” It’s sick but I’m afraid the West is trapped in ideological limbo for the time being.
Here is a link where you can listen to “Koheleth” in Hebrew. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3101.htm
This parable is not about workers or money or government. It uses earthly rewards to illustrate heavenly ones. The Christain who lives by Christ’s teachings for many years will recieve the same reward as the one who only began in the last hour of life so the first shall be last, and the last shall be first is not a reversal of fortune or standing. The later workers were not penalized by the landowner anymore than God would penalize a new Christian who happens to die only a short time after becoming a believer. Marx believed in measuring a person’s worth by ability and need, but God weighs worthiness, not by the time of the clock or the sweat of the brow, but by what is in the heart. This makes the two ideologies stand well apart.
The landowner doesn’t represent the government which takes and gives regardless of the will of the people. He doesn’t represent the wealthy either. The landowner represents God who gives equal treatment to all who choose to follow his ways much the same way a naturalized citizen of this country enjoys all of the same rights as those of us born here. (Except that they cannot be president but in heaven no one can become God either.) While people try to use such parables to support ideals of government they forget that most of Jesus parables were about the actions of individuals not that of governments. If his teachings were meant to be models of government he would have spent more time with Pontius Pilate or the Sanhedrin.
When it comes to charity, I prefer the Good Samaritan. It is usually used to illustrate how unkind people are and how a stranger can turn out to be a friend, but I mostly notice how the Samaritan uses his own money and resources to help.
You’ve described this parable exactly as it was meant. As were all parables given by Jesus. They are quite like an onion. As one peels back the layers (think of layers as understanding) another meaning couched in the parable becomes known to the reader. To each is given a meaning to the parable according to their understanding.
I think the ‘surface’ understanding Jesus meant to impart about rich man not being able to enter the kingdom of God is that you can’t take it with you – a rather obvious one.
Thanks for saying that. I agree, you can’t take it with you.
Very well said! The problem is that many people quote the more well-known passages of the Bible, without understanding that there is a context which surrounds them. The examples you gave were perfect!
Zombie’s point is that throughout history Christianity has advertised itself and has been understood by almost everybody to favor the “poor” regardless of whether their poverty might have resulted from external oppression or from internal indolence. Marxism is even more oblivious to the question of personal effort. This is but one instance where Marx rebelled against his teacher Hegel, who wrote (in The Philosophy of Right) that wealth is a result of diligence. In fact, Marx’s dictum of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” fits in rather snugly with Zombie’s experience at school.
Except interpreting Christianity as such is just plain wrong. True, we’re willing to help the repentant sinner who has brought poverty and misery upon him/herself, but we will not enable. It is the height of cruelty to fund a drug addict’s habit, or to otherwise enable self-destructive behavior. We’ll pick up the pieces, but you have to want to be helped.
Dearest Zombie-Chan (sorry, couldn’t resist he-he-he),
This is the message I got out of your post:
Both Marxists & Christians have (in their own ways) canonized the poor and less-gifted, less-talented, less everything as forever “faultless”, child-like ‘victims’ of luckless birth and cruel circumstance and in this assbackwards mind-set the winners are evil and the losers take all and the Muslims have strategically preyed on to this weakness of ‘Western religion/ideological’ good-will’ by playing the victim/underdog po-po-p’ful-me fiddle to the hilt.
Am I close or no cee-gar?
The Bible commands the poor to work, and it commands families to take care of their own. Thou shall not covet is a solemn warning, for covetousness is the root of many sins. It’s not for nothing that sloth is included among the cardinal sins. Now, there is nothing wrong with doing the minimum, but as you sow, so also you shall reap. Thus, someone who wants to do the minimum can do so, but he must not envy those who have more.
Myth, come to think of it, it’s mighty hard to be full-on ‘poor’ in America if you work.
This is by far the best analysis yet that I have read on the mentality behind the “freedom flotilla.”
The desire to limit competition is increasing in North America, but it has become nothing less than official dogma in Europe. Almost everything in Europe could be described as a race towards the middle; if you succeed too much in life, then you will be taxed so harshly that you will end up with less money than people that work for you. In fact, many people in Germany do not have a spouse that works (usually the wife) because their income would cause them to lose money. That means generally, if the wife cannot earn a substantial salary, her income will be taxed so heavily that the family will earn less money with her in the labour market than if she stays at home on the couch.
The Moslem world has perfected this victim-victor game to a tee. The problem inherent with Marxism is that the connection made between poverty and social ineptitude is exactly reversed. Marxists believe that the Middle East is violent because of poverty and an unequal distribution of wealth in the world, but this is putting the cart before the horse. The violent, antisocial, and anti-modern tendencies in the Middle East are the cause of the poverty, not the result. We have created a game where the first person to last place wins a prize; that prize is lionization at the UN and tonnes of welfare provided by the winners to the losers to keep them in the game.
When you objectively look at the relationship between Jews and Europe, this is perfectly clear. European leaders love to memorialize dead Jews in Auschwitz, but they will stand beside the ovens and label the Jews determined to survive in Israel as the new Nazis and urge them to pursue policies that will be just as genocidal as those of the Nazis. For me, I would rather live and be hated than die and be memorialized. I guess that sums up the state of things between Israel and the rest of the world right now.
Great points. So true, hon.
Thank goodness the moronic term “Suicide bomber” was correctly RE-termed “Homicide bomber”!
Suicide is a singular. As soon as your intent to kill yourself involves other people it ain’t singular any longer.
I’ve sunk so low that I’ve tried to kill myself before but the idea of taking innocent people along with me to the grave is pure evil. If Muslims turn a blind eye to this they are truly lost.
I think many people in the West considered suicide bombing as so morally reprehensible, that the only thing they could do was condemn Israel. Much of what passes for normal in the Middle East would be considered well beyond the pale in the West, and the question of supporting children in martyrdom operations is no exception. Ironically, instead of blaming the culture responsible, many people in the West thought that the Palestinians must truly be downtrodden if they were willing to stoop so incredibly low. It never dawned on them that the real problem is that large swathes of the region have no respect for human life due to being saturated with violent fantasies of conquest and submission.
But, but, but . . . the whole world’s ganging up on Israel! She’s the underdog.
Throw Karen, Ronald, and YOU in prison for being selfish, greedy, and anti-American.
Wayne for President!
Jesus help us!
What a mug’s game, trying to completely fit 2,000 year old philosophies to modern times. The poorest westerners are now as rich as ancient minor royalty. The poorest muslims are still as poor as any peasantry, at any time. This isn’t about wealth or fairness, it’s about power and control.
Of course, but isn’t it scary to see how easily many people succumb to this manipulation ?
This whole incident is just so transparent.
Jesus said, in Matthew 19:24, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” He also, in Matthew 19:21, said “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
The inescapable conclusion one draws from these statements by Jesus is that people who are wealthy and successful will in the long run be the greatest losers of all,….
These passages don’t mean what most people think that they mean. Read the Mat 19:24 (which is actually a continuation of 21-22) carefully, and you’ll notice the following verse (19:26): “[Jesus replied] This is impossible for man, but for God everything is possible.” Many of the followers of Jesus were actually rich. Certainly Lazarus and his sister Mary were able to afford the very expensive perfume that Mary poured on Jesus’ head (Mat 26:7, Mark 14:3, see also John 11:2), and they probably supported Jesus’ ministry financially for several years. Nicodemus the pharisee and Zacchaeus the tax collector were also followers.
The young man went away dejected because he didn’t have his priorities straight. He thought – as most people do – that you can do something to save yourself; Jesus told him what he had to do, and he couldn’t accept it. Salvation, of course, comes through faith in Jesus, not through any works which you do – this was Jesus’ point.
The problem isn’t being rich, per se, it’s that rich people tend to set maintaining their wealth and power as their highest priority, neglecting other important things. Far from condemning those who are rich and powerful, Jesus lays on them extra responsibilities: to rule justly, to take care of the poor, to help those in need, to support the Church in its mission.
Thanks, Paul: “He thought – as most people do – that you can do something to save yourself; Jesus told him what he had to do, and he couldn’t accept it. Salvation, of course, comes through faith in Jesus, not through any works which you do – this was Jesus’ point.”
But what then about the beatitudes? Aren’t they implicit instructions on how to act, while the commandments are instructions about how not to act? These demand more than just believe in me, do they not?
“The text of St. Matthew runs as follows:
* Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
* Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
* Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
* Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
* Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
* Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
* Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
* Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)”
Each of those is an act born of faith. Faith says, “I trust Jesus to save my soul, and He shall be my Judge. Therefore, no one shall stop me from doing what is right. What are these riches? They may be fun, but I regard them as nothing. Shall my rage consume me? No, restraint is wiser. Shall I boast of my righteousness? No, let me mourn and loathe my sins, that I may rejoice in the salvation bought for me. Shall curses, beatings or even death threats make me deny my Savior? By no means! Those curses are blessings to me.” Yes, to the fleshly minded person, these things are upside-down, but so it is with the entire Gospel, for “The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, but to we who are being saved by it, it is the power of God.” A Christian is a soldier in a war that all must fight. The winners shall live and the losers shall perish.
By the way, Mercy Rules are supposed to declare the team leading by a huge amount the winner early, so as not to allow them to thoroughly embarrass the loser.
Yeah, that’s how I thought Mercy Rules worked too. They just stopped the game and declared the leading team the winners. Saved a lot of time in baseball, since that can go on forever.
I guess it devolved over time.
I’m glad Zombie mentions one of the controversial topics of the Bible regarding marxism and christianity. However that discussion is very welcome, I don’t agree with the conclussion (I’ve been protestant christia who found my way to Damascus ending in Objectivism). Jesus was most concerned with after life and for what it is (or is supposed to be) he is right that not any pence you got will help you in the after life, therefore, you should worry also about other things -not only the money.
If we look for other episodes of this same jesus, He once defended the right of the owner of the land to pay the same salary to different workers no matter if they came first or they came later. That is directly opposed to lots of leftist dogmas about the rights of the workers.
Therefore, I should say that either Jesus was not that consistent regarding the subtle principles behind the marxism and capitalism (because he didn’t care or didn’t know), or if we accept a christian premise, that apparent contradiction should be solved other way.
As long as we take the New Testament as a confrmation (and not an opposition) to the Old Testament, IMO, the solution is always towards the prosperity is good, G’d gives you prosperity.
Have a nice day
Sounds like the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog law will work well in Canukia.
Ha! Good one!!!
Actually the bible interpretation is fairly new as an overall theological underpinning of Christianity. Jesus is very neutral towards wealth, and praises those who accumulate it fairly and use it wisely. The idea that Christians must be pacifistic paupers is a Protestant interpretation that has gained credence as Western civilization surpassed Islam and the Orient. It is the basis of “white guilt”.
I’ve not noticed the authors name on this:
From what I gather from this is in my posting name.
Stick to your little cult of Crazy & Delusional friends who actually buy into your words.. You are suffering from vicacratism.. Get up off your lazy butt and earn what you want. No one to blame for your life, your life is no more or less than how you live it!
Jesus H. Christ, this is sickening. Congratulations, you’ve clambered up each other’s backs to reach new heights of spiritual contradiction. This manufactured disdain for temporal things, this empty yearning to release materialism and gift them to the needy in favor of your genuine purpose in the here-and-now . . . the infinite reward of the hereafter. But a Mexican sneaking in so he can work and feed his family? “FREEZE, BEANER!” I get the same feeling when I see conservatives whimpering over oil covered pelicans – utterly disingenuous, utterly political.
You people know nothing of God. And less of yourselves. Why don’t you just give up the charade and get back to what you really think and care about . . . whatever that is . . . what is it today? What did the memo direct? Woodrow Wilson? The Gore divorce? Obama’s sleeves? Where will your spiritual journey take you today?
The Illegal Mexicans raping and murdering people?
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/01/illegal-immigrants-crime-spree-in-wa/
Yes, ain’t they speshal?
If I know nothing of God, you know even less, Commie, lazy asshat.
If all the rapes and murders were at the hands of illegal immigrants, you’d actually have a point.
Yeah. Only 28% of violent felonies are linked to illegals. Not enough, eh?
therefore 72% is linked to non illegals… not enough?
Fine, less than 1 percent of felonies are committed by gay people, so maybe you should pack your bags . . . unlesss . . .
Correct, covenants and contracts, a covenant with God along with contracts with your fellow man, not a man-made forced egalitarian society.
Another, more salient point of Matthew 19:24 is the that some of the “rich” may find it difficult to get into heaven because they’re more likely than the poor to feel that they don’t NEED God. They ascribe all of their success to their own strengths and abilities. The poor find it easier to rely on God – sometimes that’s all they’ve got.
In Bible school I was taught, “The text without the context is a pretext.” That sum,s up almost all of the Left’s Scripture-twisting propaganda.
Wow, Christianity and Communism are the same because they both speak of the downtrodden…Hey, don’t forget that they also both start with the letter “C!” Really, I have come to expect a bit more indepth analysis from you. Early Christianity’s emphasis was on the fleetingness of life and the distraction of material things, where as Communism is about redistribution of material things. Christianity was about sharing what you have and Communism is about taking from those who have. Christianity reminds persons that there is something greater to come, Communism calls that idea “opiate of the people.” Christianity is about freedom, Communism is about oppression. There have been many attempts to try to link the two, as in Liberation Theology, but the Church has rejected that understanding. I like your overall point about achievement though. We must restore some sanity to the idea of achievement.
You got that right. Communism is everything Christianity is not. For people to compare Christianity to communism/marxism et al is rediculous since under those types of governments, Christians were persecuted.
Restoring achievement is sorely needed. I heard somewhere (can’t find a reference) that the ‘non competitive’ movement has not had the effects that were expected by its proponents. Instead of doing better in school, kids now lack ambition and are generally mediocre. Parents who bought into the idea must be so proud to know that their kids will not be the ones to cure cancer or solve dependence on foreign oil.
Excellent, succinct, and to the point, Bill B.
The Creator does not envy human achievement. But He does expect humans to keep it all in perspective.
I can just see both Soccer teams in Canada trying to score into their own net so as to run up their opponent’s score, therby causing the opponent to lose! You would then be faced with the ridiculous spectacle of Team A trying to prevent Team B from scoring on Team B’s goalie! In other words, each team would be defending the goal they were formerly trying to score against!
Sheesh. If I were a player in that sort of joke, I’d quit playing “organized” sports and form my own leagues with my friends.
chicopanther
The way this thread has developed this is a little OT, but it seems to me that the Canadian soccer league could make sure that nobody wins by more than 5 points, and still preserve the fundamental nature of the game, by saying that as soon as one team leads by five points the game’s over — which of course means that the team leading by 5 points has won, and that the losing team has lost by only 5 points. That this fairly obvious solution did not occur to the people running the league shows how much the basic anti-competitive, let’s pretend attitude described in the article has spread through society.
They actually came to their senses and changed it to that (although I think the margin is now 8 to invoke it).
Linked this and your previous post here:
http://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/zombie-on-peace-flotilla-losing-is-the-new-winning/
Of course, the Russian revolution, like most such revolution, wasn’t the serfs displacing their masters. As George Orwell so perceptively pointed out in “1984″ (in the book-inside-a-book by “Emmanuel Goldstein”) all societies throughout recorded history have had three basic classes: the high, the middle, and the low; and periodically, a disaffected group of the MIDDLE tries to displace the high by purporting to be the champions of the low and enlisting the low as “cannon fodder” on their behalf. If they succeed, they indeed do become the “new boss, same as the old boss”, even as they may co-opt some of the “low” in the leadership.
Re: your points about Xianity vs. Marxism: I expected this to be inflammatory, and “text without context is pretext”, but in your defense, you did point out that there are innumerable differences between the two besides the similarity you point out. The same point might have been made about certain forms of liberal (not traditional) Judaism and their obsession with a “social justice” that, in practice if not in intent, would end up being both anti-social and a perversion of justice. One might, more generally, say that Marxism is basically a messianic religion without a deity. Which is one reason I regard Marxist Jews as having converted out of the faith.
Marxism may easily be construed as a secular heresy of Christianity, merely bending unoriginal material to its delusional purposes. I don’t think the above analysis is quite correct, but neither would be a strong Christian reaction to an understandable error in conflating the heresy and the orthodoxy.
Happens all the time.
I think when folks like zombie try to compare teaching in Christianity and marxisim it’s a tough thing. For one zombie can choose a verse here and verse over here and put them together and make it prove hid point which he does. One major difference between Christianity and marxisim is one is forced the other one is voluntary and also to be rich is not something God looks down on but God points out the love of money is not a good thing. Also in parables it talks about the lazy man will not eat and that to eat you need to work. The article was good but once again someone who seemed lacking in the Word of God tries to explain things not in their field of knowledge.
I think this is another perspective on the topic. It’s from “History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell, Book 2: Catholic Philosophy, Part I: The Fathers, Chapter IV: Saint Augustine’s Philosophy and Theology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Jewish pattern of history, past and future, is such as to make a powerful appeal to the oppressed and unfortunate at all times. Saint Augustine adapted this pattern to Christianity, Marx to Socialism. To understand Marx psychologically, one should use the following dictionary:
Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The Elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The Second Coming = The Revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalists
The Millennium =The Communist Commonwealth
The terms on the left give the emotional content of the terms on the right, and it is this emotional content, familiar to those who have had a Christian or a Jewish upbringing, that makes Marx’s eschatology credible. A similar dictionary could be made for the Nazis, but their conceptions are more purely Old Testament and less Christian than those of Marx, and their Messiah is more analogous to the Maccabees than to Christ.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
“You may be on top now, Jesus is saying, but eventually only society’s losers (the destitute) will get the ultimate reward — eternity in heaven.”
Ok so thats obviously not what the words mean. There is an ER in there or something. But you know that and I just want to post on a Zombie column cause I think you rock.
Please, Zombie, stick to covering protests, which you do so well, and give the theology a break.
You know the test about Christianity?
You just failed it.
Apparently you belong in the corner.
Re Zombie and Christianity: Rather than doing the usual bible thumping thing and spit out contradictory, contextless quotes from all over the damn scripture, I’ll just post the entire story the Bible line came from:
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2019:16-19:28&version=NIV
Christianity is not a macroeconomic system, it is a recipe for personal salvation (or, if you will, enlightenment). You don’t need to be a mystic to appreciate the philosophy here, which suffuses every other line of the Gospels. Heck, you don’t even have to believe in God. In sort, the material universe is without innate value. It is transient. It WILL pass away, whether in an apocalypse or at the heat death of the universe. You, as a person, a life, have infinitely more value than the wealth you hoard and the petty power you may gather, and so do your fellow humans. You waste your life – which will be brief and pitifully finite in the larger scheme of things even if you live 1,000 years – by forgoing the love that elevates you from the material and the animal.
That’s why Jesus tells you to give. Charity is for YOU, not for the recipient. In giving – in loving enough to give – you are redeemed.
This is in complete contradiction of Marxism, whose central metaphysical tenet is that the economic is everything, the material is everything, and any suggestion to the contrary is a smokescreen (“opiate”) to stop the poor from seizing a larger share of the pie by their sheer numbers. “Compassion” in Marxism, and modern liberalism, is nothing but a forcible seizure of wealth from one group to another. No one is actually compassionate. No one is grateful. There is no love. And it doesn’t – it can’t – work. The ends of such murderous, loveless, hypocritical enterprises, born when a Marxist reads about abstractions and decides that Someone Else Should Do Something About It, is uniformly horrible. God’s wrath, if you will.
—”You waste your life – which will be brief and pitifully finite in the larger scheme of things even if you live 1,000 years – by forgoing the love that elevates you from the material and the animal.”
This is so well put! I enjoy my comforts in life, such as they are (and they are indeed greater than the comforts of most humans throughout history, and greater than probably most humans now living). But as I get older, I find that the love given and received is more meaningful – intensely more meaningful – than not only wealth and comforts, but also such things as intellectual achievement.
—”‘Compassion’ in Marxism, and modern liberalism, is nothing but a forcible seizure of wealth from one group to another. No one is actually compassionate. No one is grateful. There is no love. And it doesn’t – it can’t – work.”
Again, very, very well put.
Strange how we Christians allow murderous thugs, perverts, athiests, and what not to “teach us”.
It seems odd to me that anyone would regard Islam as anything but what it is. How many universities have they created for women? How many beautiful works of art in the last, say 100 years? How much tolerance of diversity?
I’m sorry; but anything I hear from a Muslim is tainted by their doctrine of “al taqiyyah”. I would not expect them to tell me the unvarnished truth any more than I would expect a Baptist Preacher to advocate Buddhism as a means of eternal salvation.
The same goes for our socialist, communist friends. Truth to them is only that which advances the revolution.
The rest of you can keep your head stuck in the sand; but there are actual enemies of the United States who don’t rest… Just look at who is on your local school board and what they’re teaching your children…
There are lots of Christians on school boards. And lots of priests, thank god, providing spiritual direction and a comforting hand for our young boys.
Actually, that Ottawa soccer rule isn’t quite as anti-competitive as it at first looks. It instead fundamentally changes the strategic nature of the game due to the fact that teams can score goals for the opposing team (own-goals).
Once one team is ahead by 3 or 4 goals, the teams no longer follow traditional soccer play. Instead, the winning team is trying to prevent the losing team from scoring too many own-goals, and hence, winning by default. So the goal that each team is effectively defending changes based on the current goal differential. This is a very radical change in the nature of the game, and actually makes it much more interesting, from a game-theory point of view. And that’s not even taking the goalies and penalties into account!
This is comparable to the card game, Hearts. Typically, players try to avoid collecting hearts and scoring points. However, if one player gets all the points, instead everyone else gets the points and that player gets none. This is called, “Shooting the Moon.” While it doesn’t happen often, once a player starts trying to shoot the moon, everyone’s strategy changes.
In the long run though, I suspect the actual results will be as described in the article: once a certain goal differential is reached, the play becomes a dull game of keep-away.
That kid’s soccer rule could create an interesting situation. Your team is down by 5 goals and time’s running out? Just kick the ball into your own net, insuring that you lose by 6 goals, and therefore win. Of course if the game is allowed to continue, the team up by 6 goals would immediately score an own-goal, cutting the margin back to 5. Each coach would have their goalies and defenders run to the opposite goals to try to stop the own-goaling. Hey look, a real competition just broke out!
13. skeeziks
The Little Jenny Gobbling Goebbels flaps its beak!
“Little Jenny sleazits: [crying]” “You people…”
“Little Jenny sleazits: [crying]” “Why don’t you just give up the charade…”
“Little Jenny sleazits: [crying]” “… utterly disingenuous…”
Interesting how the Principal Liar sleazits resorts to Cesspool Moralizing when the tank runs low. Bobbing for apples in the cesspool must have run its course as an activity. Such a moral, upstanding, virtuous, bigot has a much way bigger so important thing to promote.
Itself as a Liar.
Hey sleazits, what happened to that lame Principal Levine? Is the funhouse mirror in Libra now? Just another passing phase in the journey from moho to the unknown boundaries of the Modern Liberal Cesspool?
The Great Modern Liberal Paragon of Truth and Virtue, the center of all that is moral, exists on a level where it’s Iron Clad Rules simply don’t apply to the warped reflection that it calls itself. Lying is ok, that is, if you are the Liberal Cesspooler addressing anybody who is not you.
Refute this, liar – Can you see the pattern here? Isn’t this “… utterly disingenuous…”? You people… such a common phrase.
13. skeeziks
“You people…”
June 5, 2010
Praetorian
“It’s gonna be a rough eight-years for you people.”
May 19, 2010 – 4:57 pm
139. Principal Levine
“One day, when you people finally regain your senses…”
May 21, 2010 – 2:04 pm
14. Diablo
“You people are two sides of the same sick coin..”
April 23, 2010 – 4:48 pm
42. dahbouv
“You people don’t get hypocrisy and why that is bad …”
April 24, 2010 – 8:23 am
43. oscar le sleazits
“You people are hilarious
“You’re just two dumb to know it.”
May 5, 2010 – 12:31 pm
38. moho
“…you people… “.
Jan 8, 2010 – 5:38 pm
20. skeeziks
You people sure know how to pick your saviors.
January 30, 2010 – 9:58 am
Another sequence courtesy of The Principal Liar sleazits –
skeeziks
“Hail Rush. Go Sarah.”
June 4, 2010 – 8:03 am
111. Now and Then:
“Hail Rush, Go Sarah.”
Dec 4, 2009 – 1:23 pm
233. Now and Then:
“Hail Rush. Go Sarah!”
Dec 5, 2009 – 7:03 am
Need more, liar?
And on and on. Check the PJM archives. The Principal Liar sleazits is well represented as Multiple Persons Galore. So lying about who you are is ok. Of course, why not? After all, the dominant impulse is all about getting attention. Nothing else matters, much like being The Fly with a Principal Liar sleazits head. Help Me! Help Me! Crunch!!!!
“…utterly disingenuous…”
Really now? Where’s “You have no standing”? Is “utterly disingenuous”
the new catch phrase picked up from the cat box newspaper that was flushed down to Cesspoolville?
“But a Mexican sneaking in so he can work and feed his family? ‘FREEZE, BEANER!’”
Give you next meal of frozen recycled cesspool corn to the next illegal Mexican you encounter. Repeat this until there are no hungry illegal Mexicans. Then tell Van Jones what a good dog you are. Just think, you might even qualify for a Presidential Medal. A Varathaned can of beer of your choice on a used toilet paper chain! Wow!!!! What a President!
Been preaching the Modern Liberal gospel, Mr. Ex-Deacon? And what will the next one be, Internet inventer? Military Man?
skeeziks
” I used to know people like you when I was a deacon . . .”
June 4, 2010 – 8:03 am
Yeah right. Sure. A liar ex-deacon in a cesspool. How nice. Did they find you out as well, and dump you?
That Kick Me sign nailed to your ass just keeps getting bigger.
You made your cesspool. Love it or leave it.
Whatever.
Days before the after=party for the unceremonious events of the past few futures, Mr. Lucky eschewed toothpaste for the higher ground known as Hades. “What ho!” said he, sublimity at hand. “It’s dose time!” With that he ran down the corridor, flip flops flipping and flopping. And who is to believe such desktop dancing does not conceal a deeper obsession with the finer thign sin life? No one, that’s who. For there is no arguing with such divine certainty as this – “Baby Ruths are chocolatey good. I even eat the wrappers.” And ’round the corner he went, the open back gown revealing the source of his tremendous intellect
Lying Is the New Truthfulness.
In its own words…
skeeziks
“…being unmasked as obsequious hypocrites can’t feel good. I don’t expect you to admit it . . . ”
June 3, 2010 – 4:31 pm
Did you say hypocrite Mr. Multiple Person Galore? Hypocrite? That’s right, that’s what that “H” on your pork pie so cool hat stands for. Hypocrite.
Then this bit of Cesspool Wisdom.
skeeziks
“Here’s the really fun part . . . none of you can ever refute anything I say.” …”
June 5, 2010 – 1:02 pm
Sure Liar. Refute you past and future personalities. Go ahead. Does this bit of barking apply to cesspool world –
” All you can muster is “nuh-uh’”
June 5, 2010 – 1:02 pm
Remember this?
“…and the most faded of all blog cliches about… meds… The former shows a stunning lack of knowledge and the latter proves an even broader paucity of imagination. ”
June 5, 2010 – 1:02 pm
And then –
Little Jenny [crying]: skeeziks – “It’s dose time!”
The Principal Liar sleazits using what it refers to as ” the most faded of all blog cliches…” Wwwwooooowwww!
The Kick is away!
Yes indeed. The Principal Liar sleazits shows that only it can be certain things, “you people” are not allowed, and it believes that it alone is immune from the very actions it so condemns, once again setting that fine example of Teflon Truth and Vomit Virtue.
More here!
skeeziks
“Get in the game.” Offer some unique and curious observations. That’s what I do . . . ”
June 5, 2010 – 1:02 pm
Sure enough. Like Lie. Lie lie, Liar . “That’s what I do . . . ” Curious isn’t it that the fact of posting with many ID’s is not addressed. There it is for all to see, and The Principal Liar sleazits can never “muster” the “Courage and Intelligence” to acknowledge to it’s own sorry lying legacy.
skeeziks
Come, on, who’s got a pair?
June 5, 2010 – 1:02 pm
Hmmm… What? Pair of… what, The Principal Liar sleazits? Come Kyber, bark out the Truth that you are sooooo loud about. Where’s your “pair” Mr. Ex-Deacon? Where’s that resolve and truthfulness that you lyingly preach to others? No, no “pair” there. Barbie doll plastic smooth. Quite a “pair”, coward.
Come on Little Jenny [crying]: Liar, lay it all out. You know, The Truth. The Truth. It’s Truth or Consequences time.
Van Jones loves the Kick Me sign nailed to your ass. It’s made from recycled vomit. So green, so Modern Liberal, so lacking in moral… principal.
The “Game” is what you made it, Little Jenny Loser Liar. Refute you own barking. Come Kyber. Got a “pair”? Where’s your “pair”? Yeah, you lost that setup long before the Wannabe Jihadist underwear proto incident.
Hey, what’s that ripping sound coming from the cesspool? No, that can’t get any bigger. Must be a new bag of recycled corn opening for the downtrodden.
You made your cesspool. Love it or leave it.
Whatever.
After that bruising, I’d never show my face again even if I had a different mask to wear.
Really? How is is that your parents ended up with “We are Government” for a surname? Perhaps the same way “Mr Lucky” ended up with his mask . . . I mean name.
Hail Rush! Go Sarah!
Almost forgot, here’s another entry for you blog . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFMfaI_A8lk&feature=youtube_gdata
Now, about that independent investigation into Sestak . . .
Eh? Coherency, where is thy sting?
That was so incoherent that it doesn’t even qualify as a rant. That was just a filibuster of nonsense.
When I first read this I was appalled and so I reflected on an appropriate response.
You see unfortunately in the real world people have been known to cheat at sports.
That cheating is not limited to adult sports.
The easiest way to cheat in child’s sports is to lie about age.
In a country with multiple ethnicities and economic backgrounds it is even easier to lie about children’s ages and as we all know, children like adults do not come in uniform sizes.
Perhaps this is partially a lack of familiarity with soccer.
Your first question when presented with information of a significant disparity of scoring in soccer should be ‘Why is a team that is so much better than the other even scheduled?’ or….why are ten year olds playing eight year olds?
Yes, winning can bring about a sense of superiority and self esteem even when cheating.
Didn’t it ever occur to you to wonder why children from low income areas seem to be better a sports at a younger age than their better income peers?
What did you think it was, better nutrition?
As to you rant about Christianity.
There is absolutely no evidence that Christianity has caused the gluttonous and predatory to limit their excesses.
Keep up the good work, Zom
This video is EXACTLY the kind of analysis and Media response Israel needs to engage in continuously to fight the lies. WHY they do not do it is beyond me. I never see their spokesmen hitting on these points, forcing the media to confront the ludicrous double-standards and false narratives.
IF THE MEDIA IS GOING TO JOIN THE CONFLICT ON THE SIDE OF THE ENEMY, Israel needs to engage them as such, pushing back on the narrative and holding the media to account for its partisanship.
This is something Americans need to keep in mind as well, dealing with the lackeys and morons who want to sweep Islamic radicalism in the US under the rug.
Wow, I have escaped the “inescapable”…I must be wonderful! Your understanding of “origins of Christianity” are, for lack of a better word, unique. Oh, I just thought of a better word, “idiotic.”
Communism & Christianity (especially in its earliest form) may both appeal to the poor and downtrodden, but there is a HUGE difference between WHY they both appeal to the same groups. Marxism operates almost purely on jealousy. The idea that communism could possibly work is ridiculous on its face, and would be rejected out of hand by most people, except for the one thing it gets right – it recognizes the power of jealousy. While communism says, take wealth from the rich and destroy them because your labor created it and you deserve it, Christianity says, do not be jealous of the rich, because all the wealth in the world will not get a man into heaven. There is an enormous difference between the two viewpoints, in both theory and practice.