Your source is selectively cherry picking the Bible and missing the point of Jesus' teachings and the over-all theme of the Bible, seems to me.
Where your source says...
"As the Bible says, “Evil men do not understand justice.”
I note that the Bible says...
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Be perfect, therefore [whole, complete -DT], as your heavenly Father is perfect.
And your source says, with zero support biblically or rationally...
"Social justice activists are not wrong about what they consider justice issues—They are wrong about what they consider evil or good, injustice or justice."
Who says that Social justice activists are wrong about what they consider just or injust? On whose authority? This one man?
I would not think that this one man is the end all or be all about whether or not people who seek social justice (as Jesus teaches us to do) are wrong or is in any position to make that decision. And who is he to say that social justice activists ARE evil people? That's incredibly slanderous and a bold false witness with zero support.
Are you going to bow down to this one man and say he gets to make that call?
Or do you agree that this is a sweeping and unsupported charge in this story?
Your source continues...
"The Bible says, “the wicked borrows but does not pay back.”
But the Bible also says...
‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?... Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be first, and the first will be last”
The debt is FORGIVEN. That's different than not paying back. Hell, it's even a basic element of Calvinist Christianity - unmerited Grace. Do you think this man knows better than God that it's OKAY to forgive a debt, ESPECIALLY to the poorer folks?
That IS a matter of justice, not injustice as he incorrectly assumes.
Forgiving a rich person's debt - when such a person is in the privileged position to be able to afford to repay a debt - does not constitute Justice, not as found in the teachings of Christ, our Lord.
As you well know by now, Jesus repeatedly made claims about seeking justice and extending grace to specifically for and to the least of these, the poor, the marginalized, the foreigner, the orphaned and oppressed AND Jesus had multiple warnings to the wealthy whose systems benefit the wealthy and oppress the poor. AND Jesus and the prophets had warnings for whole nations whose systems oppressed the poor and benefited the rich.
Jesus makes clear that we are SPECIFICALLY and literally to watch out for and side with the least of these. For when the poor have justice, that IS justice.
As Jesus made clear:
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
Your source continues with the mis-cherry picked and misunderstood reference...
"Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. "
This stands on the side of FORGIVING the debt. Because, once a debt is forgiven, THEN THE DEBT IS NOT OWED. One does not owe a forgiven debt. Again, I point you to grace.
Are you going to insist, upon your death when Jesus said you are forgiven by God's grace from your terrible sin-debt, which should be paid for in an eternity of torment and torture, "No, God, you're wrong. I INSIST I PAY THAT DEBT. I spit on that grace. A debt is a debt is a debt. You're trying to force me to sin, God. "
No. You're not going to do that. You are glad, I believe, to accept God's grace and God's forgiveness. But this gentleman is missing the point and insisting upon paying debts that are no longer owed. Indeed, he is trying to guilt the Forgiven ones by saying Biden would be forcing them into sin. When that is literally missing the point.
I can go on, but can you see how this fella is cherry picking his biblical arguments and missing the multitude of verses and reason in favor of the point of grace, of God's good news TO THE POOR and marginalized?
One final note about this source's quotes from the Bible: He picks the minority positions and misunderstands/misrepresents what the Bible is saying in total, and he quotes from isolated OT passages mostly (Proverbs, Proverbs, Romans and Leviticus) and cites Jesus not one time. I, on the other hand, cited Jesus and the prophets. And, one final note: One must always be careful when citing proverbs. There are many proverbs in the book that are citing real world realities, but those realities are not always good realities or good philosophy/religion.
In Proverbs 28, which your source cites, it also says,
"Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses"
Forgiving the debt of the poor (and yes, where is that line? is a reasonable question, but it doesn't undermine the main point) IS a Godly and good and, in this case, rational thing to do. As the Bible attests.
I disagree with this one man's opinions.
[and this is Dan if blogger doesn't acknowledge that as it's seemed to do here lately]
Regarding the unnecessary and pandering and abusively patronizing title of this post, I HAVE listened to black voices. I've considered and addressed this one black man's opinions and (I think) bad biblical exegesis and eisegesis, and I've listened to the majority of black opinion on this topic...
Now what? Listen to the one man with his unbiblical cherry-picking or listen to reason and the majority of black voices?
For the record, my children have no student loan debt that would be covered by this action. Even though we're in the right income to receive relief, any debt they have would not be applicable for this forgiveness. That is to say, we don't have anything to gain by supporting this action.
Likewise, my wife and I, thanks largely to the privileges we have as middle class white folks, also didn't incur massive student debt. But we're not in the crowd who say, "Well, I had to pay MY own way and it's not fair that these students would get a free ride."
Again, as Jesus noted, "If I choose to do this kindness, how does that harm you? What business is it of yours?" (paraphrased).
"Your source is selectively cherry picking the Bible and missing the point of Jesus' teachings and the over-all theme of the Bible, seems to me."
Of course it "seems" like that to you. He doesn't agree with you, and therefore this is your foundation to dismiss what he's said as irrelevant. Because you never selectively choose what scripture you cite in order to prove your case. FYI, I don't care how anything "seems" to you, usually this means you're going to be wrong.
"And your source says, with zero support biblically or rationally..."
That's quite a claim with zero proof.
I'm more likely to listen to a black guy about justice than a white guy, as you insist that I should.
"Who says that Social justice activists are wrong about what they consider just or injust? On whose authority? This one man?"
Well, I guess he is saying that. Yet, you frequently say that things are right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad without authority and by yourself. Why should I accept this when you do it, but not when a black man does it?
"The debt is FORGIVEN."
1. You've laid no foundation that your cherry picked proof texts are related in any way to the text the author cited.
2. In the case of the student loan fiat, the debts are not "FORGIVEN", they are transferred from the borrower to the national debt (read multiple generations of taxpayers).
"That's different than not paying back. Hell, it's even a basic element of Calvinist Christianity - unmerited Grace."
Again, you still haven't laid any foundation as to why your cherry picked proof text, trumps the original quoted text.
"Do you think this man knows better than God that it's OKAY to forgive a debt, ESPECIALLY to the poorer folks?"
1. I suspect that this gentleman is at least as acquainted with scripture as you are, and given his skin color, probably more acquainted with many things than you are. 2. In the case of the student loan situation, these debts are being transferred, not forgiven" from the individual borrowers (the majority of whom are white and middle/upper middle class) to the entire tax base of the US. In other words, blue collar workers are being taxed to pay the debts of other people.
"Forgiving a rich person's debt - when such a person is in the privileged position to be able to afford to repay a debt - does not constitute Justice, not as found in the teachings of Christ, our Lord."
That's quite the unsupported, claim. Are you talking about monetary debts, or spiritual debts? Should I bow down to this one man and say he gets to make that call?
"As you well know by now, Jesus repeatedly made claims about seeking justice and extending grace to specifically for and to the least of these, the poor, the marginalized, the foreigner, the orphaned and oppressed AND Jesus had multiple warnings to the wealthy whose systems benefit the wealthy and oppress the poor. AND Jesus and the prophets had warnings for whole nations whose systems oppressed the poor and benefited the rich."
I know that you keep saying this, even though it contradicts other things Jesus said and did. Why should I accept your hunch about this as being objectively True?
"Jesus makes clear that we are SPECIFICALLY and literally to watch out for and side with the least of these. For when the poor have justice, that IS justice."
Interesting, unsupported claim. Unrelated to the specific point of this post. I'll simply point out the reality that Jesus "justice" did not exclude those who weren't poor, nor was it a temporal economic "justice". Again, why would I bow to one man on this topic?
The rest of the second comment is simply off topic. This conflation of Jesus paying the debts (sin) of people because they are unable to pay it themselves, with transferring the student loan debt of some to everyone. Jesus paid our sin debt himself. He didn't transfer it to every other human in existence.
"Now what? Listen to the one man with his unbiblical cherry-picking or listen to reason and the majority of black voices?"
One more unproven claim. Ultimately you're going to listen to the black voices that make you feel the best, whitesplian to the ones who don't, and I could care less. FYI, the "black voices" who want student loan debt eliminated have been pretty vocal about how much Biden's fiat isn't enough for them. Of course I already pointed that out.
"For the record, my children have no student loan debt that would be covered by this action."
Immaterial, pointless, and off topic. Unfortunately, your children, their children, their children, und so weiter, will be paying this 320+ billion dollar giveaway off for the rest of their lives. Now your children will have student loan debt, it just won't be theirs.
"But we're not in the crowd who say, "Well, I had to pay MY own way and it's not fair that these students would get a free ride.""
Interesting that you would take such an anti justice position. My question then is why haven't you chosen to pay off some deserving student's loans? Why do you wait for government to force you, your children, your grandchildren, und so weiter to pay off other people's debts?
"Again, as Jesus noted, "If I choose to do this kindness, how does that harm you? What business is it of yours?" (paraphrased)."
Again, Jesus never forced anyone to pay off debts incurred by other people. Further Jesus never paid of anyone's temporal, monetary, debts.
It harm's me because I'm (as part of the US who pays taxes) paying for debt that people freely chose to incur. It harms me because I paid of my own student loans, paid off big chunks of my kid's loans, and now I have to pay off someone else's loans as well.
Your ignorance about how this works is distressing. The fact that you don't understand that these loans aren't magically disappearing is concerning. This falsely named "forgiveness" is simply adding 320+ billion dollars to an already unconscionably high federal debt, on top of the fed printing money, the billions of dollars spent for "stimulus" and Ukraine. It's not a big secret that federal spending/printing money drives inflation, yet you seem oblivious to that reality.
The fact that you meekly accept the fact that the "IRA" bill name was simply a lie, as is this "forgiveness". Given what you've said about "stupid lies", I'm surprised that you accept these stupid lies with such ardor.
I disagree with ONE man's opinions for reasonable concerns in his opinions and unsupported claims - and in the process, agree with the majority of black voices - and I'M "whitesplaining...?"
Thanks for straightening all of us out, great white chief.
Oh yes. I've been aware of that for some time now. It's not really about the color of the person to who's voice we must listen. It's about the marxist ideology of the person...black, white or whatever color the person's skin might be.
Dan clearly didn't study the black person's message, or he wouldn't have dared suggest the man said SJW are evil...though I think they most definitely are corrupted by evil to one degree or another in a manner unique to them. Some, like Dan, are particularly obvious in their evil, while others are not so much. In the meantime, Sey's point was they are wrong about what they consider evil or good, injustice or justice. Then again, Dan's objection may be admission in disguise.
Dan pukes on about forgiving debts, but it's another example of what the author stated regarding being wrong or not understanding. Only those to whom a debt is owed can forgive it. Biden didn't loan any student money. He didn't pay anyone's admission to college. The Dept of Education, didn't either. Those are federal loans. That is, loans made with taxpayer dollars. When did we get to vote on forgiving what is owed us.
But Dan's really cool with having others pay and should he succeed in getting others to pay the debts of another, he can pretend he did something for the person who owes. Biden and the Dems are the same. "See what I did for you...even though I made others bear the cost?" There's nothing Christian about it. The debt is not erased as Christ erased our sin debt. It is Christ/God against Whom we've sinned and thus it is Christ/God Who is entitled to choose whether or not to forgive that debt. Biden didn't make the loan. The Dept of Education merely facilitated the granting of tax dollars. In other words, they loaned students our money, not theirs.
Stephen Moore expressed the concern no one will ever pay back a student loan from the federal government. Why should they? Amnesty for illegal invaders resulted in more invasion. This is an amnesty program and others will seek to shirk their obligation into which they entered on their own volition. There's nothing just about this perversion of the concept of justice, forgiveness and righteous obligation.
However, if those like Dan and Biden feel this is a great idea, they are more than free to cough up as much of their own money to relieve the debt burden of as many welchers as they are able to help. Let them put their money where their lying mouths are.
I'm still trying to understand why pin-head Dan thinks Samuel Sey's proper exegesis of Bible passages to support his position are not valid. Oh, because they don't mention Jesus?
As noted by others here, the loans aren't "forgiven," rather they are transferred to taxpayers and done ONLY to get votes for the Demokrat party.
Dan only proves once again that he is NOT a Christian and has virtually no understanding of what the Bible really says.
Much like the federal policies that resulted in the devastation of the housing and lending market in 2006-2009, the notion that the federal government throwing money at 10 year olds was a good idea is what has brought us to this point. It's a student loan bubble, and it's going to take more than this vote buying scheme to solve the problem.
"I'm still trying to understand why pin-head Dan thinks Samuel Sey's proper exegesis of Bible passages to support his position are not valid. Oh, because they don't mention Jesus?"
I thought i was quite clear.
Because cherry-picking isolated verses out of context of the source book and the whole sweep of the Bible is not good Bible study.
We can find isolated verses that talk about selling one's daughter into sexual slavery/forced marriages in the Bible, but cherry picking those verses out and concluding that it's a good thing to sell your daughter into a marriage would be a horrible conclusion.
If we can agree that cherry picking verses from here and there outside of context from The Bible is not a good thing, then the next rational question is can we agree that while there are maybe a handful of verses that emphasize the importance of repaying loans, that there are also biblical passages about debt forgiveness, right?
Could we further agree that this literal debt forgiveness is the much more solidly biblical and Christian theme?
"Because cherry-picking isolated verses out of context of the source book and the whole sweep of the Bible is not good Bible study."
Anon,
Are you suggesting that this practice is never "good Bible study"? Are you suggesting that anyone who engages in this practice should not be listened to?
"If we can agree that cherry picking verses from here and there outside of context from The Bible is not a good thing, then the next rational question is can we agree that while there are maybe a handful of verses that emphasize the importance of repaying loans, that there are also biblical passages about debt forgiveness, right?"
I'm unaware of any biblical passages that are specifically endorsing a secular government to unilaterally take financial debt obligations which were entered into willingly, and force others to assume the burden of those debts. I further don't know of any Biblical support for children and grandchildren being forced into being responsible for the debts of people they don't know. Nor am I aware of any Biblical support for taking privately incurred debt obligations and adding them to the public debt.
This is what happens when you cherry pick passages, conflate figurative and literal language in a bizarre attempt to put a Biblical veneer of a political maneuver. Unless you can specifically point out Biblical passages that are specifically analogous to our current situation, I fail to see the relevance.
"Could we further agree that this literal debt forgiveness is the much more solidly biblical and Christian theme?"
1. The debt "forgiveness" being foisted on us by Biden is not "forgiveness" by any rational definition. It's transferring a debt obligation from an individual to the national debt.
2. Most of the "debt" language in the NT is figurative language which draws the parallel between sin and debt. One reason for this figurative language is to point out the degree to which (monetary) debt renders that debtor under the control of the lender and how sin renders the sinner under the control of someone other than YHWH.
3. This conflation of figurative and literal language is frustrating to say the least. It's kind of pathetic to see so many people who've mocked "literalists" for years all of a sudden getting hyper woodenly literal because it helps their political agenda.
"Could we further agree that this literal debt forgiveness is the much more solidly biblical and Christian theme?"
Not in the least. Again, Christ's forgiving of our sin debt is due to the fact that He is who is owed and thus He has the full authority to say one needn't pay the debt. Joe Biden and his Dem clown show is not owed the loans students willingly took out. Federal loans use OUR money and thus WE must agree to forgive those loans...not just moronic lefties who pretend they're Christians or Americans. The true just action to take is for those who took out the loans to do what's necessary legally to repay the debt. If that means multiple menial jobs for the rest of their lives, that's what's required of them for having willingly entered into the agreement. To force the rest of the nation to pay, when most of the rest of the nation have their own debts they work to pay off, including student loans, is not anything akin to any Scripture the "serious and prayerful student of Scripture" could present.
If we can agree that cherry picking verses from here and there outside of context from The Bible is not a good thing, then the next rational question is can we agree that while there are maybe a handful of verses that emphasize the importance of repaying loans, that there are also biblical passages about debt forgiveness, right?
The article did not "cherry pick" passages, rather the author properly exegeted the passages and how they should apply to everyone, not just Christians. The only passage about forgiveness is, as noted by others, in regards to the theocracy of Israel.
How many times doe Dan have to be told that these debts aren't "forgiven" (regardless of what Obama/Biden and his lackies say) but are transferred to the rest of us for payment!?!?!
I am not done with you folks yet. I still need to reach my full power level and complete my evolution. By the way, I am Dan Trabue. Have you not realized that?
I am not done with you folks yet. I still need to reach my full power level and complete my evolution. By the way, I am Dan Trabue. Have you not realized that?
Glenn, I would agree with you on this. I think the point being made is that the author did not exigete every single possibly relevant passage exhaustively. The problem is that the one who keeps making this complaint, engages in the strategy that he so vociferously uses as an excuse to dismiss the author's conclusions. You'll note that he hasn't proven the author to be wrong, nor has he even offered alternative interpretations of the citations the author used. He's instead chosen to ignore the whole thing by dismissing everything based on process.
Of course this who thing is shamelessly conflating the language of scripture around debt as a proxy for sin, and probably should be ignored anyway.
"I am not done with you folks yet. I still need to reach my full power level and complete my evolution. By the way, I am Dan Trabue. Have you not realized that?"
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, but it seems as if you are becoming a bit unhinged, are exhibiting an inability to understand how Blogger works, and showing quite a bit of hubris.
26 comments:
An incredibly, all encompassing explanation of all that's wrong with canceling student debt. It hits it from every angle without a single false step.
Your source is selectively cherry picking the Bible and missing the point of Jesus' teachings and the over-all theme of the Bible, seems to me.
Where your source says...
"As the Bible says, “Evil men do not understand justice.”
I note that the Bible says...
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Be perfect, therefore [whole, complete -DT], as your heavenly Father is perfect.
And your source says, with zero support biblically or rationally...
"Social justice activists are not wrong about what they consider justice issues—They are wrong about what they consider evil or good, injustice or justice."
Who says that Social justice activists are wrong about what they consider just or injust? On whose authority? This one man?
I would not think that this one man is the end all or be all about whether or not people who seek social justice (as Jesus teaches us to do) are wrong or is in any position to make that decision. And who is he to say that social justice activists ARE evil people? That's incredibly slanderous and a bold false witness with zero support.
Are you going to bow down to this one man and say he gets to make that call?
Or do you agree that this is a sweeping and unsupported charge in this story?
Your source continues...
"The Bible says, “the wicked borrows but does not pay back.”
But the Bible also says...
‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?...
Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?
Or are you envious because I am generous?’
So the last will be first, and the first will be last”
The debt is FORGIVEN. That's different than not paying back. Hell, it's even a basic element of Calvinist Christianity - unmerited Grace. Do you think this man knows better than God that it's OKAY to forgive a debt, ESPECIALLY to the poorer folks?
That IS a matter of justice, not injustice as he incorrectly assumes.
cont'd...
Forgiving a rich person's debt - when such a person is in the privileged position to be able to afford to repay a debt - does not constitute Justice, not as found in the teachings of Christ, our Lord.
As you well know by now, Jesus repeatedly made claims about seeking justice and extending grace to specifically for and to the least of these, the poor, the marginalized, the foreigner, the orphaned and oppressed AND Jesus had multiple warnings to the wealthy whose systems benefit the wealthy and oppress the poor. AND Jesus and the prophets had warnings for whole nations whose systems oppressed the poor and benefited the rich.
Jesus makes clear that we are SPECIFICALLY and literally to watch out for and side with the least of these. For when the poor have justice, that IS justice.
As Jesus made clear:
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded;
and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
Your source continues with the mis-cherry picked and misunderstood reference...
"Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. "
This stands on the side of FORGIVING the debt. Because, once a debt is forgiven, THEN THE DEBT IS NOT OWED. One does not owe a forgiven debt. Again, I point you to grace.
Are you going to insist, upon your death when Jesus said you are forgiven by God's grace from your terrible sin-debt, which should be paid for in an eternity of torment and torture, "No, God, you're wrong. I INSIST I PAY THAT DEBT. I spit on that grace. A debt is a debt is a debt. You're trying to force me to sin, God. "
No. You're not going to do that. You are glad, I believe, to accept God's grace and God's forgiveness. But this gentleman is missing the point and insisting upon paying debts that are no longer owed. Indeed, he is trying to guilt the Forgiven ones by saying Biden would be forcing them into sin. When that is literally missing the point.
I can go on, but can you see how this fella is cherry picking his biblical arguments and missing the multitude of verses and reason in favor of the point of grace, of God's good news TO THE POOR and marginalized?
One final note about this source's quotes from the Bible: He picks the minority positions and misunderstands/misrepresents what the Bible is saying in total, and he quotes from isolated OT passages mostly (Proverbs, Proverbs, Romans and Leviticus) and cites Jesus not one time. I, on the other hand, cited Jesus and the prophets. And, one final note: One must always be careful when citing proverbs. There are many proverbs in the book that are citing real world realities, but those realities are not always good realities or good philosophy/religion.
In Proverbs 28, which your source cites, it also says,
"Those who give to the poor will lack nothing,
but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses"
Forgiving the debt of the poor (and yes, where is that line? is a reasonable question, but it doesn't undermine the main point) IS a Godly and good and, in this case, rational thing to do. As the Bible attests.
I disagree with this one man's opinions.
[and this is Dan if blogger doesn't acknowledge that as it's seemed to do here lately]
Regarding the unnecessary and pandering and abusively patronizing title of this post, I HAVE listened to black voices. I've considered and addressed this one black man's opinions and (I think) bad biblical exegesis and eisegesis, and I've listened to the majority of black opinion on this topic...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/most-black-voters-support-eliminating-student-loan-debt-new-survey-n1258030
Now what? Listen to the one man with his unbiblical cherry-picking or listen to reason and the majority of black voices?
For the record, my children have no student loan debt that would be covered by this action. Even though we're in the right income to receive relief, any debt they have would not be applicable for this forgiveness. That is to say, we don't have anything to gain by supporting this action.
Likewise, my wife and I, thanks largely to the privileges we have as middle class white folks, also didn't incur massive student debt. But we're not in the crowd who say, "Well, I had to pay MY own way and it's not fair that these students would get a free ride."
Again, as Jesus noted, "If I choose to do this kindness, how does that harm you? What business is it of yours?" (paraphrased).
"Your source is selectively cherry picking the Bible and missing the point of Jesus' teachings and the over-all theme of the Bible, seems to me."
Of course it "seems" like that to you. He doesn't agree with you, and therefore this is your foundation to dismiss what he's said as irrelevant. Because you never selectively choose what scripture you cite in order to prove your case. FYI, I don't care how anything "seems" to you, usually this means you're going to be wrong.
"And your source says, with zero support biblically or rationally..."
That's quite a claim with zero proof.
I'm more likely to listen to a black guy about justice than a white guy, as you insist that I should.
"Who says that Social justice activists are wrong about what they consider just or injust? On whose authority? This one man?"
Well, I guess he is saying that. Yet, you frequently say that things are right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad without authority and by yourself. Why should I accept this when you do it, but not when a black man does it?
"The debt is FORGIVEN."
1. You've laid no foundation that your cherry picked proof texts are related in any way to the text the author cited.
2. In the case of the student loan fiat, the debts are not "FORGIVEN", they are transferred from the borrower to the national debt (read multiple generations of taxpayers).
"That's different than not paying back. Hell, it's even a basic element of Calvinist Christianity - unmerited Grace."
Again, you still haven't laid any foundation as to why your cherry picked proof text, trumps the original quoted text.
"Do you think this man knows better than God that it's OKAY to forgive a debt, ESPECIALLY to the poorer folks?"
1. I suspect that this gentleman is at least as acquainted with scripture as you are, and given his skin color, probably more acquainted with many things than you are.
2. In the case of the student loan situation, these debts are being transferred, not forgiven" from the individual borrowers (the majority of whom are white and middle/upper middle class) to the entire tax base of the US. In other words, blue collar workers are being taxed to pay the debts of other people.
"Forgiving a rich person's debt - when such a person is in the privileged position to be able to afford to repay a debt - does not constitute Justice, not as found in the teachings of Christ, our Lord."
That's quite the unsupported, claim. Are you talking about monetary debts, or spiritual debts? Should I bow down to this one man and say he gets to make that call?
"As you well know by now, Jesus repeatedly made claims about seeking justice and extending grace to specifically for and to the least of these, the poor, the marginalized, the foreigner, the orphaned and oppressed AND Jesus had multiple warnings to the wealthy whose systems benefit the wealthy and oppress the poor. AND Jesus and the prophets had warnings for whole nations whose systems oppressed the poor and benefited the rich."
I know that you keep saying this, even though it contradicts other things Jesus said and did. Why should I accept your hunch about this as being objectively True?
"Jesus makes clear that we are SPECIFICALLY and literally to watch out for and side with the least of these. For when the poor have justice, that IS justice."
Interesting, unsupported claim. Unrelated to the specific point of this post. I'll simply point out the reality that Jesus "justice" did not exclude those who weren't poor, nor was it a temporal economic "justice". Again, why would I bow to one man on this topic?
The rest of the second comment is simply off topic. This conflation of Jesus paying the debts (sin) of people because they are unable to pay it themselves, with transferring the student loan debt of some to everyone. Jesus paid our sin debt himself. He didn't transfer it to every other human in existence.
Bad examples, bad theology.
"Now what? Listen to the one man with his unbiblical cherry-picking or listen to reason and the majority of black voices?"
One more unproven claim. Ultimately you're going to listen to the black voices that make you feel the best, whitesplian to the ones who don't, and I could care less. FYI, the "black voices" who want student loan debt eliminated have been pretty vocal about how much Biden's fiat isn't enough for them. Of course I already pointed that out.
"For the record, my children have no student loan debt that would be covered by this action."
Immaterial, pointless, and off topic. Unfortunately, your children, their children, their children, und so weiter, will be paying this 320+ billion dollar giveaway off for the rest of their lives. Now your children will have student loan debt, it just won't be theirs.
"But we're not in the crowd who say, "Well, I had to pay MY own way and it's not fair that these students would get a free ride.""
Interesting that you would take such an anti justice position. My question then is why haven't you chosen to pay off some deserving student's loans? Why do you wait for government to force you, your children, your grandchildren, und so weiter to pay off other people's debts?
"Again, as Jesus noted, "If I choose to do this kindness, how does that harm you? What business is it of yours?" (paraphrased)."
Again, Jesus never forced anyone to pay off debts incurred by other people. Further Jesus never paid of anyone's temporal, monetary, debts.
It harm's me because I'm (as part of the US who pays taxes) paying for debt that people freely chose to incur. It harms me because I paid of my own student loans, paid off big chunks of my kid's loans, and now I have to pay off someone else's loans as well.
Your ignorance about how this works is distressing. The fact that you don't understand that these loans aren't magically disappearing is concerning. This falsely named "forgiveness" is simply adding 320+ billion dollars to an already unconscionably high federal debt, on top of the fed printing money, the billions of dollars spent for "stimulus" and Ukraine. It's not a big secret that federal spending/printing money drives inflation, yet you seem oblivious to that reality.
The fact that you meekly accept the fact that the "IRA" bill name was simply a lie, as is this "forgiveness". Given what you've said about "stupid lies", I'm surprised that you accept these stupid lies with such ardor.
Art,
See what happens when you listen to the black voices Dan dismisses, and whitesplains?
I disagree with ONE man's opinions for reasonable concerns in his opinions and unsupported claims - and in the process, agree with the majority of black voices - and I'M "whitesplaining...?"
Thanks for straightening all of us out, great white chief.
Oh yes. I've been aware of that for some time now. It's not really about the color of the person to who's voice we must listen. It's about the marxist ideology of the person...black, white or whatever color the person's skin might be.
Dan clearly didn't study the black person's message, or he wouldn't have dared suggest the man said SJW are evil...though I think they most definitely are corrupted by evil to one degree or another in a manner unique to them. Some, like Dan, are particularly obvious in their evil, while others are not so much. In the meantime, Sey's point was they are wrong about what they consider evil or good, injustice or justice. Then again, Dan's objection may be admission in disguise.
Dan pukes on about forgiving debts, but it's another example of what the author stated regarding being wrong or not understanding. Only those to whom a debt is owed can forgive it. Biden didn't loan any student money. He didn't pay anyone's admission to college. The Dept of Education, didn't either. Those are federal loans. That is, loans made with taxpayer dollars. When did we get to vote on forgiving what is owed us.
But Dan's really cool with having others pay and should he succeed in getting others to pay the debts of another, he can pretend he did something for the person who owes. Biden and the Dems are the same. "See what I did for you...even though I made others bear the cost?" There's nothing Christian about it. The debt is not erased as Christ erased our sin debt. It is Christ/God against Whom we've sinned and thus it is Christ/God Who is entitled to choose whether or not to forgive that debt. Biden didn't make the loan. The Dept of Education merely facilitated the granting of tax dollars. In other words, they loaned students our money, not theirs.
Stephen Moore expressed the concern no one will ever pay back a student loan from the federal government. Why should they? Amnesty for illegal invaders resulted in more invasion. This is an amnesty program and others will seek to shirk their obligation into which they entered on their own volition. There's nothing just about this perversion of the concept of justice, forgiveness and righteous obligation.
However, if those like Dan and Biden feel this is a great idea, they are more than free to cough up as much of their own money to relieve the debt burden of as many welchers as they are able to help. Let them put their money where their lying mouths are.
I'm still trying to understand why pin-head Dan thinks Samuel Sey's proper exegesis of Bible passages to support his position are not valid. Oh, because they don't mention Jesus?
As noted by others here, the loans aren't "forgiven," rather they are transferred to taxpayers and done ONLY to get votes for the Demokrat party.
Dan only proves once again that he is NOT a Christian and has virtually no understanding of what the Bible really says.
Yes, you are whitesplaining. No, you disagree with more than "one" black voice. I only used this one example.
Art,
Much like the federal policies that resulted in the devastation of the housing and lending market in 2006-2009, the notion that the federal government throwing money at 10 year olds was a good idea is what has brought us to this point. It's a student loan bubble, and it's going to take more than this vote buying scheme to solve the problem.
Glenn,
I think we all know the answer to your question.
Glenn...
"I'm still trying to understand why pin-head Dan thinks Samuel Sey's proper exegesis of Bible passages to support his position are not valid. Oh, because they don't mention Jesus?"
I thought i was quite clear.
Because cherry-picking isolated verses out of context of the source book and the whole sweep of the Bible is not good Bible study.
We can find isolated verses that talk about selling one's daughter into sexual slavery/forced marriages in the Bible, but cherry picking those verses out and concluding that it's a good thing to sell your daughter into a marriage would be a horrible conclusion.
We agree on that, right?
If we can agree that cherry picking verses from here and there outside of context from The Bible is not a good thing, then the next rational question is can we agree that while there are maybe a handful of verses that emphasize the importance of repaying loans, that there are also biblical passages about debt forgiveness, right?
Could we further agree that this literal debt forgiveness is the much more solidly biblical and Christian theme?
"Because cherry-picking isolated verses out of context of the source book and the whole sweep of the Bible is not good Bible study."
Anon,
Are you suggesting that this practice is never "good Bible study"?
Are you suggesting that anyone who engages in this practice should not be listened to?
Anon,
"If we can agree that cherry picking verses from here and there outside of context from The Bible is not a good thing, then the next rational question is can we agree that while there are maybe a handful of verses that emphasize the importance of repaying loans, that there are also biblical passages about debt forgiveness, right?"
I'm unaware of any biblical passages that are specifically endorsing a secular government to unilaterally take financial debt obligations which were entered into willingly, and force others to assume the burden of those debts. I further don't know of any Biblical support for children and grandchildren being forced into being responsible for the debts of people they don't know. Nor am I aware of any Biblical support for taking privately incurred debt obligations and adding them to the public debt.
This is what happens when you cherry pick passages, conflate figurative and literal language in a bizarre attempt to put a Biblical veneer of a political maneuver. Unless you can specifically point out Biblical passages that are specifically analogous to our current situation, I fail to see the relevance.
"Could we further agree that this literal debt forgiveness is the much more solidly biblical and Christian theme?"
1. The debt "forgiveness" being foisted on us by Biden is not "forgiveness" by any rational definition. It's transferring a debt obligation from an individual to the national debt.
2. Most of the "debt" language in the NT is figurative language which draws the parallel between sin and debt. One reason for this figurative language is to point out the degree to which (monetary) debt renders that debtor under the control of the lender and how sin renders the sinner under the control of someone other than YHWH.
3. This conflation of figurative and literal language is frustrating to say the least. It's kind of pathetic to see so many people who've mocked "literalists" for years all of a sudden getting hyper woodenly literal because it helps their political agenda.
"Could we further agree that this literal debt forgiveness is the much more solidly biblical and Christian theme?"
Not in the least. Again, Christ's forgiving of our sin debt is due to the fact that He is who is owed and thus He has the full authority to say one needn't pay the debt. Joe Biden and his Dem clown show is not owed the loans students willingly took out. Federal loans use OUR money and thus WE must agree to forgive those loans...not just moronic lefties who pretend they're Christians or Americans. The true just action to take is for those who took out the loans to do what's necessary legally to repay the debt. If that means multiple menial jobs for the rest of their lives, that's what's required of them for having willingly entered into the agreement. To force the rest of the nation to pay, when most of the rest of the nation have their own debts they work to pay off, including student loans, is not anything akin to any Scripture the "serious and prayerful student of Scripture" could present.
Art,
We could "agree" to Anon's hunch, but I don't see any compelling reason to do so.
If we can agree that cherry picking verses from here and there outside of context from The Bible is not a good thing, then the next rational question is can we agree that while there are maybe a handful of verses that emphasize the importance of repaying loans, that there are also biblical passages about debt forgiveness, right?
The article did not "cherry pick" passages, rather the author properly exegeted the passages and how they should apply to everyone, not just Christians. The only passage about forgiveness is, as noted by others, in regards to the theocracy of Israel.
How many times doe Dan have to be told that these debts aren't "forgiven" (regardless of what Obama/Biden and his lackies say) but are transferred to the rest of us for payment!?!?!
I am not done with you folks yet. I still need to reach my full power level and complete my evolution. By the way, I am Dan Trabue. Have you not realized that?
I am not done with you folks yet. I still need to reach my full power level and complete my evolution. By the way, I am Dan Trabue. Have you not realized that?
"The article did not "cherry pick" passages,"
Glenn, I would agree with you on this. I think the point being made is that the author did not exigete every single possibly relevant passage exhaustively. The problem is that the one who keeps making this complaint, engages in the strategy that he so vociferously uses as an excuse to dismiss the author's conclusions. You'll note that he hasn't proven the author to be wrong, nor has he even offered alternative interpretations of the citations the author used. He's instead chosen to ignore the whole thing by dismissing everything based on process.
Of course this who thing is shamelessly conflating the language of scripture around debt as a proxy for sin, and probably should be ignored anyway.
Anon,
"I am not done with you folks yet. I still need to reach my full power level and complete my evolution. By the way, I am Dan Trabue. Have you not realized that?"
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, but it seems as if you are becoming a bit unhinged, are exhibiting an inability to understand how Blogger works, and showing quite a bit of hubris.
Post a Comment