sherpa

That may be something you're interested in. I do a good deal of dispursement this at our church, and I am not aware of anything attaching strings, but to each his own. I am simply stating that a great deal of charitable contributions that US citizens make are not reported in any official capacity, and certainly not as gov aid. It could be argued that a small amount of it could be monitored by allowable tax deductions, but that would be another false path, as a great deal of these are not reported to the IRS since people don't itemize as often since the standard deductions are large enough to eliminate that reporting. The point is that the US citizen gives way more in charity than is ever accounted for by gov stats, and those avenues are not nearly as opted for by foreign citizens,

I am extremely suspicious of this conclusion, as I have seen similar things in the past. In the link, at least as far as I could tell, there is no mention of aid totals that are separate from official gov numbers. The US grants aid as a government, and that is what seems to be reported in this link. US citizens also have thousands of avenues to provide such aid that are not reported as official gov aid, largely religious. Other countries do not have near that participation. I believe that if total aid from US citizens, including not formal gov aid was included in these numbers, it would drastically change the conclusion. Most US citizens support charities that are not part of any gov report.

You are going full Tibsy. You are asserting that I have said something I never have, nor ever will. Total Tibs. I have no view on "civilian employees" in DOD. Your phrase. What I have stated, and believe with clear, undeniable personal knowledge, is that the Reserves/National Guard supplement the active duty military, deploy regularly to war zones and our capability would be nowhere near what it is without them. In short, we couldn't function as we do without them.

I know what they do, and they deploy and pull triggers just like active duty, all the time. I think the current state of the US armed forces indicates and absolutely knows "what level of guard/reserve we need." They are invaluable, cheaper, and extremely effective. We could not support our military mission without them.

I have no idea what your nephew does. I do have a very good idea of what the Guard and Reserves do, and they deploy on active duty and carry out the same missions as as anybody else in the military, often for extended periods. It isn't what is used to be, and they are very involved. Social norms. It's a different culture. You can even see it here with various groups.

Go beyond the obvious, which these parables told by Jesus often do. It is easy to see the lesson of a perceived enemy helping out someone to an impossible level, which the Samaritan does above the priest and the Levit. The depth of the parable is that the moral/legal authority .who asks the question of salvation never gets the lesson, as he indicates by asking who his neighbor is. He is looking for an excuse. Similar to a number of parables, most obvious in the parable of the prodigal son. Most folks see that as a forgiveness lesson, but look at the other brother, who is angry because of perceived getting shorted by the dad. He never gets over it. He never figures that forgiveness is a gift and unburdens people.

I believe that there are hundreds of references in the Old Testament addressing this, which have come true. I am in no position to say what God requires, but I am familiar with what is in the Old Testament regarding what occurred, with undeniable accuracy.

Great question. First of all, it's a parable, not a true historical story. Samaritans were despised by the Judeans, and not to be dealt with, so this individual made a perfect example. This individual not only saves the guy, he puts him up in a hotel on the road and says he will pay for all expenses. There are two lessons in this parable. The first is the impossibility of ever living up to the standard of the answer to the Samaritan's question, which is "What is required for eternal life," to which Jesus answers, to this Old Testament legal authority, "What do you think," and he answers, "Love God with all your....and Love your neighbor as yourself." The legal authority, then, trying to get out of it, says, "Well, who then is my neighbor?" The point is that such a standard is impossible, and the only way is through the sacrifice which eventually reconnected humanity with God.

Jesus Joe. Come over the mountain. I'll buy you dinner. By the way, if you're ever over here, that offer exists. Peace.

Remarkably simple question. Have you added anything to this thread? Evidence? Names of 1st documented century folks specifically mentioned in historical documentation. Evidence of the lives of people after this verified life that supports your view? Anything?

I can quote what they said. If this is tough for you that is why I mentioned them, because there is written record of it. It is idiotic to not know this. I didn't suggest that the only evidence of Jesus was the Gospels. There is a bunch of evidence regarding Pilate, Herod, Caiphus, (the chief priest at the time), that verifies the testament. I specifically mentioned two non Christian historians who validated this. The Gospels are testament to his life and have constant mention of him. Not sure how you came to that. There was no "Christianity" before the life of Christ, thus the name.

I'm pretty sure I do, but yet another post with no support. To use the old F-14 quote, Anytime Baby.

You type a lot of crap, but you never support it. Were Tacitus and Josephus lying? There are more by the way. Do people die supporting something they know to be a lie? Your entire vector is nonsense, and you have said nothing other than you don't believe it, which nobody cares about.

Historical record? I mentioned two of them, and I specifically mentioned non Christian, acclaimed historians of that time. You have now moved the posts, and ask if the Gospels are historically accurate, which I believe they are, but that is a different subject. A bunch of guys are hiding in a building after the crucifixion. They have followed this individual for years. but they are terrified that they to will be persecuted by the Romans and the behest of the Temple leaders. Suddenly.......Something happens. They all spend the rest of their lives proclaiming what they believe to be true, and all but one die horrible, torturous deaths for those views. Do people allow themselves to be tortured and killed protecting a lie? Doesn't happen. The man existed. The man was crucified by the Romans and all of these people changed at the same time. Historical evidence exists beyond the Christian community.

Just stupid. Jesus' existence is mentioned by Josephus and Tacitus, non Christian historians of the time. I have no interest in the rest of your nonsense accusations.

The Catholic Church is not Jesus. There is clear historical, non Biblical evidence of this. Do your own work. Don't ask others.

So you didn't get it when I said I was against the idea, and repeated it with a quote.

Jesus never taught anything committing any nation to economic suicide, which is exactly what would happen if any nation refuses to enforce borders with reasonable immigration rights. The conjecture that he did if preposterous. There are scores of Christian organizations that contribute huge funds and huge volunteer work for scores of nations around the world. Those are the best ways to handle this, while leveraging those people to make domestic changes on their own, ie., influencing their own governments to change.

You are approaching Tib's like status. Is there some way I could make it more clear than I have in my post above where I said: "I don't like the idea." Reality is that there are thousands of examples of human situations that are in contrast to a philosophy of love and acceptance. What would Jesus think about carpet bombing cities? Fire bombing Japan in WWII. Using nuclear weapons at the end of that war. The entire question is a red herring. Jesus lived His life in a manner that would make the human condition much better, which was needed at that time, but we will never reach. He certainly, as an infant, did not become a law breaker. But, we have laws now that are better if enforced, and when not, you get what we got. The entire thread is a trigger.

No, I don't like the idea. I am in favor of elected officials enforcing border laws, and understand that the total disregard for that responsibility is what got us to this unfortunate point.

Another incredibly stupid post. Jesus was absolutely not a carpenter when his family fled, briefly, to Egypt to escape an edict from Herod to kill all young males. Reading your posts is similar to having to work in a circus cleaning up after the elephants. Just idiotic, and I do have that "basic grasp."

I'm not sure you are familiar with the world 2000+ years ago. People travelled to and settled in different countries all the time. That was the nomadic nature of middle east civilizations. Regarding now, people who entered the country illegally were invited to leave without persecution, thus facing no legal consequences. What this industry has become now is a profit making enterprise, and by the way, I don't have "a guy."

Converting water into wine, and then having it served, would have raised some eyebrows at current day licensing agencies. His skin color has nothing to do with the anything. In those days people were not known by race, ethnicity. That is a modern construct. They were known by where they were from and their family lineage. He really wasn't a "migrant." His family fled to Egypt for a time when he was far too young to be accountable. He also recommended abiding by gov laws.

I'll throw in a few thoughts about the Bolivian situation. I had the opportunity to spend a fair amount of time there, Santa Cruz to be specific. Never enough to really form an opinion I would strongly assert, but a view nonetheless. Bolivia is comprised of two separate, completely different groups of folks. The indigenous Andean people, and those who are more involved in industry and economics. They are completely different groups, complete bifurcation. Evo Morales was a product of the Hugo Chavez movement. He is indigenous and that's fine. He was definitely disliked by those who provided the economy with the funds to function. There were times where the place was hours away from a true revolution. Chavez failed miserably. The aggressive Chavista movement was ultimately rejected by Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay as it's economic disaster became more and more apparent and people got tired of listening to him. Venezuela and Cuba are not strong selling points to South Americans, in fact if mentioned, it will invoke laughter. Morales made it longer than most, but he never had the support of the people who are Bolivia's economic strength.

You and others who are of similar views can pay for the funding of the sources you favor, which we all do at this point. I prefer clean, efficient, non grid dependent sources that newer technology presents. Scores of very large companies, and a few countries that require and depend on on site reliable power agree with me, but to each his own.