WWBOD?

[Surfah]

I think this is the most discussion on this topic anywhere on the web.

Not true. There are over 100 comments to the linked article most of them raising the same point Moliere did.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Wasn't this the line from the Spider Man movie? What's the origin of it? Is it actually in the New Testament?

Luke 12:48

And again from Boyd K Packer, but in terms of sacrificing for the church ('pay your tithing, fast offerings, building fund, etc. willingly because the Pioneers sacrificed far, far more'): http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/11/wh...uired?lang=eng

[TripletDaddy]

Not true. There are over 100 comments to the linked article most of them raising the same point Moliere did.

Most? please break down the tally and let's see what the majority opinion truly is.

[Donuthole]

Not true. There are over 100 comments to the linked article most of them raising the same point Moliere did.

Did any of them raise the same point Tim is raising? Just wanting to make sure this isn't the only place being so one-sided in its outrage.

[Tim]

[YOhio]

All this is subliminal mind attacks on Mitt Romney by B. Hussein Oh!bama.

[Moliere]

Not true. There are over 100 comments to the linked article most of them raising the same point Moliere did.

DDDSurfah

[Jacob]

I've never attended a White House prayer breakfast but my understanding is that it is common to discuss various political issues but with a general religious overtone. It is standard practice for various faiths to represent themselves and speak but the Prayer Breakfast has always been a Christian-sponsored event with evangelizing the message always being part of the menu, so to speak.

Another purpose of the prayer breakfast would probably be to eat food.

But is it common for a president to suggest, at such events, that Jesus favors the President's preferred policies? I find it unseemly, at best. But it is much worse if we take him at his word.

Obama proposes to forcibly take more money from certain individuals and claims that such policy "coincides with Jesus’ teaching that, from to whom much is given, much shall be required."

The only way that Obama's proposed policy coincides with Jesus' teaching is if the government is standing in for Jesus. Much is required, says Jesus, but required by whom? Certainly not the earthly government. Or are we to understand that when Jesus said "render unto Caesar" Jesus meant that we could fulfill our obligations to serve God by making payment to Caesar? Certainly not.

It may be that Obama believes that rich people are rich because the government has made them so. That would fit in his narrative of requiring much where much is given.

I doubt that Obama is sincere in his belief that folks (he likes that work, doesn't he?) should give more to help out the poor. At least not as it applies to him. We know that he didn't ever give to charity before he cashed in on his political celebrity and was running for president, despite significant income earned by both he and Michelle. We know that he has never paid more into the treasury than was legally required. So, we can fairly conclude that Obama is not so interested in Jesus' couplet unless it benefit's his political preferences. Or at least that's what I conclude. And I think the argument is valid, even if not sound.

[TripletDaddy]

But is it common for a president to suggest, at such events, that Jesus favors the President's preferred policies? I find it unseemly, at best. But it is much worse if we take him at his word.

Obama proposes to forcibly take more money from certain individuals and claims that such policy "coincides with Jesus’ teaching that, from to whom much is given, much shall be required."

The only way that Obama's proposed policy coincides with Jesus' teaching is if the government is standing in for Jesus. Much is required, says Jesus, but required by whom? Certainly not the earthly government. Or are we to understand that when Jesus said "render unto Caesar" Jesus meant that we could fulfill our obligations to serve God by making payment to Caesar? Certainly not.

It may be that Obama believes that rich people are rich because the government has made them so. That would fit in his narrative of requiring much where much is given.

I doubt that Obama is sincere in his belief that folks (he likes that work, doesn't he?) should give more to help out the poor. At least not as it applies to him. We know that he didn't ever give to charity before he cashed in on his political celebrity and was running for president, despite significant income earned by both he and Michelle. We know that he has never paid more into the treasury than was legally required. So, we can fairly conclude that Obama is not so interested in Jesus' couplet unless it benefit's his political preferences. Or at least that's what I conclude. And I think the argument is valid, even if not sound.

I don't know if it is common. If you are willing to research all past prayer breakfast transcripts and present your findings, I am willing to re-evaluate my stance.

[Jacob]

I don't know if it is common. If you are willing to research all past prayer breakfast transcripts and present your findings, I am willing to re-evaluate my stance.

Done. Only 2 other presidents have been such blasphemers. Clinton and Carter.

[Eddie]

So - after a little more thought...I agree with Obama.

Where much is given, much is required.

So now let's talk about everyone with a hand out who has been given much.

Let's talk about what is expected of all of the banks and businesses that took bailout money.

Even better - let's talk about the people taking unemployment. What is expected of them?

And better yet - let's talk about the life-long welfare recipients. Shouldn't there be some expectations/requirements? Maybe we could tie welfare mom's check to her children getting their homework done and turned in on time? Maybe tie it to the children's grades? Maybe even tie a portion of it to their attendance at school? I'm just trying to think of something productive that welfare mom could do at home to help break the cycle and put her kids in a better position to be successful.

I'm curious how Obama is going to put this whole where much is given much is required principle into practice. I don't imagine that he believes it only applies to a small portion of the population...

[Clark Addison]

Am I the only one who forgets what this thread is about every time I am here and then read it as "What Would Ben Olsen Do?"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Am I the only one who forgets what this thread is about every time I am here and then read it as "What Would Ben Olsen Do?"

I thought it was about Boylen Over.