“A special military operation”

Oh, I see, you are saying that. I forget how many people subscribe to supply side Jesus.

So, we can dismiss anything he is supposed to have said that disagrees with you but we can beleive the ones you believe agree with you? Thats an interesting take.

They gave their professions up to follow Jesus. So, its very in keeping with what I said and belied any idea that their former professions belied anything. That’s very much you drawing back from where you wanted to end up and not the other way round.

Remember that “mammon” doesn’t mean money. Had Jesus only meant money, when he said that, he would have used the Hebrew word for money or coins and not a completely different word. Even then, very few people had any contact with actual money back in those days and, of the few that did, they would only ever use them to pay taxes. So, telling people not to love something they didnt come into contact with and, even if they did, would hate their contact with it would have been a bit silly. So, he clearly could never have meant that.

Its bizzare that you go on about deliberate misrepresentations in the bible and missed one of the most egregious.

Mammon means wealth or profit above what you need to survive. “The love of profit is the root of all evil.” “If you have 2 shirts, your second belongs to the man with no shirt.”

Jesus was anti wealth and Christianity, according to what he is recorded to have actually said, is incompatible with capitalism.

Sorry, I’m really not sure of the point you’re trying to make here.

I’m not saying the bible is historically accurate, beyond criticism, or that eye witness testimonies aren’t problematic. Had I done so, the above would make a lot more sense.

All I’m saying is, of the records that exist, such as they are, he was very vocally anti-wealth. You’re replying as though you’re disagreeing with what I’m saying. However, you don’t seem to refute anything that I’ve said.

Are you saying he is recorded as being vocally anti-wealth?

You gotta love the old “why vote for better oppression” argument, used despite their admission that one is in fact, considerably better. In this instance, we can literally quantify it as being 33% better.

Again, if you want to make up your own definition of middle class, then you’re right.

By everyone else’s, you’re not.

The rest is just noise.

By actual Christianity, I mean Christianity in line with the things he was reported to have said, as opposed to ones that directly go against them.

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. Theyre still the things he’s reported to have said though.

Thats WHY they killed him. Cant have those “evil blood thirty terrorists” calling for peace now can they? That would ruin the optics of their special military operation or whatever they’re calling their invasion of Lebanon.

It’s mad that they have operatives so high up in Hezbollah that they can compromise the entirety of their means of communication in one stroke but couldn’t use those same operatives and compromised lines of communication to see the October attacks coming.

Hopefully, mossad waited long enough before doing this that no one will think to try and reconcile the two.

You think thats bad, wait until you hear about the shareholders. They dont even have to pretend to work and they’ll be paid far more for their lack of trouble. The shareholders have had well in excess of a 77% pay rise and, despite that, want even more.

Crazy right? I bet that’s got you really annoyed, considering those are worse than the exact thing you were complaining about above…

Right?

I agree with everything but the fact that, of what is reported of Jesus, he was very anti-wealth, over and above what people need to get by and that a actual christianity is incompatible with capitalism.

To me, thats the part that certain types of “christians” need to be metaphorically slapped round the face with.

But some who has earned a penny in interest has spent time as both worker and owner.

Its not that you’ve shifted it. I agree there. Its that your using sweeping terms that include things like earning a penny in interest that, in order to not sound ridiculous, has to have caveated to a point that:

No, the idea is that the middle class (defined in the conventional way) spends time in both the “worker” category and the “owner” category.

Doesn’t reflect where it ends up at all.

Also, its not the conventional way. You 100% made that up and what you’re describing is petite bougouise.

From wiki

The modern usage of the term “middle-class”, however, dates to the 1913 UK Registrar-General’s report, in which the statistician T. H. C. Stevenson identified the middle class as those falling between the upper-class and the working-class.[13] The middle class includes: professionals, managers, and senior civil servants. The chief defining characteristic of membership in the middle-class is control of significant human capital while still being under the dominion of the elite upper class, who control much of the financial and legal capital in the world.

Lol yeah, what these sorts of things would be dismissed as is literally called a “repugnant clause.”

It would be a very small amount, compared to what they earn over their lifetime. The idea that someone is middle class because they’ve earned a penny in bank interest is absurd.

Or are you planning on coming back with a load of caveats you conveniently left out previously?

Some!

How do you justify ignoring everyone else telling you its bad tho?

Ironically, people say the same thing about Israel now.

“What drink would you like?”

“I’ll take a nice tall glass of the absence of water please.”

“You mean that you don’t want a drink?”

“No, the drink I’m requesting and the one I intend to drink the absence of water. Its my favourite drink.”

"So, like a coke or something.’

"No, thats the presence of coke. I want to drink the absence of water…

What do you mean by ‘I’m being ridiculous’?"

Thats a fair point but eternalism is always harmful.

It almost makes you wonder how the BBC manage to do live events.

Thats the one.

It will also bring down inflation as money received as tax is netted off against money created by the government, destroying that money, resulting in less money chasing things. Its the fiat currency equivalent of burning large stacks of gold IOUs (old time money).

Of course, the rich like to pretend the only way to fight inflation is to pay the richest people in the world eye watering amounts of interest.

For sure and, even then, in uk law, you can’t sign away your freedom to take regular legal action against someone who caused you damage, due to their illegal actions. Something like the one in the article would be, rightly, dismissed as a repugnant clause.