The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus

[CoasterMatt]

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/coastermatt/images/ssjesus.jpg
Discuss..

[sleepyjeff]

It really isn't funny at all and furthermore has no point.

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/jesus.htm

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Entertaining link, Jeff. :)

IMHO, If Jesus had the same attitude that some, not all, of his followers seem to display, there would have been a whole lot less healing going on.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I happen to believe that the ol' JC had some really effin' terrific ideas. Too bad many of his modern followers have trouble pulling the plank out of their eyes before pointing out the sliver in others'.

[CoasterMatt]

I don't agree with the Supply Side Jesus cartoon either, I simply posted it to see where the discussion would go.

And as for the plank/sliver comment, LSPE - dead on!

[scaeagles]

A favorite quote of mine -

"The single most cause of atheism in our world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out of the church doors and deny Him with their lifestyle. This is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." Brennen Manning

Speaking as a Christian, all too easy to do.

I will point out, though, that the New Testament is full of examples of correction to early Christians who had difficulties very similar to modern Christians. It isn't a problem with the "age", it is a problem with being human (though this does not make it excusable).

[Not Afraid]

You see the whole culture. Nazis, deodorant salesmen, wrestlers, beauty contests, a talk show. Can you imagine the level of a mind that watches wrestling? But the worst are the fundamentalist preachers. Third grade con men telling the poor suckers that watch them that they speak with Jesus, and to please send in money. Money, money, money! If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.

From Hannah and her Sisters. This quote still make me laugh almost 20 years later.

[wendybeth]

I do happen to know that there is at least one religion that believes if you have a lot of money, that means you are in God's favor- they equate money with righteousness, at least within the confines of their congregation. I won't say which one, but I have had quite a few arguments with members from this church on this subject.

I thought the cartoons were funny, primarily because they comment on how Christianity is often corrupted to advance economic/political agendas.

[Alex]

"The single most cause of atheism in our world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out of the church doors and deny Him with their lifestyle. This is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." Brennen Manning

I would call this nonsense. The lack of any requirement that you actually live a life of faith or dedication to call yourself a Christian (or most other religions) makes it all the easier to not be an atheist.

I would say the biggest cause of atheism is that pretty much every religion has latched onto a god or gods that refuse to make themselves apparent and rather manifest through the mumblings of so-called prophets (and generally they did it just once, millennia ago). The secondary reason is that scientific advancement of our understanding of the universe has relegated these gods to an every shrinking unobserved segment of the universe making their existence all the more unlikely. When you have a mechanical explanation for rain and thunder saying that it is a sign the gods are angry and the Jesus is pissing in heaven seems a little sillier.

As for supply side Jesus I'm just glad Al Franken is doing something that doesn't require listening to him talk. It doesn't matter to me if it is funny or accurate satire, just so long as the man doesn't speak the world is a better place for me.

[Kevy Baby]

It really isn't funny at all and furthermore has no point.

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/jesus.htmA) I don't think it was meant to be funny (satire ? humour/comedy)
B) It has a point, just (IMO) a weak and unsubstantiated point.

Al Franken is a sometimes comedian who fancies himself a political commentator. He's sometimes okay as the former and really sucks as the latter.
____________________________________

On the whole, I sometimes feel sorry for most of the major organized religions. Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism (to name a few) have taken a lot of heat as religions because of the actions of some of the so-called leaders and some of its membership. On the whole, I don't believe these religions to be bad: just the actions of some of its membership who claim to act on behalf OF the religion.

It is often a struggle for me to not hate the religion as a whole because of the idiotic actions of the few.

[scaeagles]

I would call this nonsense. The lack of any requirement that you actually live a life of faith or dedication to call yourself a Christian (or most other religions) makes it all the easier to not be an atheist.

I disagree, Alex.

While I like the quote, I think the word "athiest" may not be the best choice.

However, I agree with the sentiment of the quote wholeheartedly.

If someone claims to be a Christian and yet does not attempt to live according to the tenets of Christianity, why would someone then consider Christianity to be something of interest at all to them? Why would there be a need or desire to participate in something with no practical application or meaning?

I would suggest that when Jimmy Swaggart had his fall, not many people were saying "Cool! I want to be a Christian because that means I can have hookers, too!". Rather, I would figure the vast majority of those who cared to have thoughts about it were thinking "There goes another hypocrite Christian leader". No one likes hypocrisy. To claim to have a faith in the Christian God and yet make no attempt to live up to what the teachings of the faith entail (not talking about making mistakes, as no one is perfect) is the ultimate turn off.

[Alex]

If you want to chang the word atheist to something else then we can have a different discussion. But I have never met an atheist who says "you know, I don't believe in god because religion just isn't rigorous enough these days, but boy, back in the 1400s I'd have been all over that like an Inquisitor on a witch."

Considering that the vast majority of "Christians" I know seem to think that Christianity means nothing more than going to church on Easter I will stand by my claim that more people claim Christianity because it is too easy to do than reject it because it is too easy to do.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't see what the Hannah quote has to do with participating in a religion being easy or difficult. It's rather a matter of following its tenets in your actual life or not.

Is it inherently more difficult to behave morally than immorally? I don't think so. Perhaps it is for those who really want to be bad, but I don't see it being any kind of task for those who are truly inclined to be good.

Perhaps I'm just nitpicking with Alex's choice of words. Actually, I think Alex himself was a little stuck on the word "athiest," when the sentiment of the quote more likely was appropos of the term "agnostic." But people often say one when they mean the other, and so I'm not one to quibble between the two. Perhaps I'm taking a quibbling stand with "easy," but I found it odd to assert that living by Jesus' precepts was difficult ... as if our natural state as humans is to be hateful, cruel and greedy.

[scaeagles]

I found it odd to assert that living by Jesus' precepts was difficult ... as if our natural state as humans is to be hateful, cruel and greedy.

I actually think it is. As a parent, the hardest thing to do with my children - and I have heard this from other parents as well - is to teach then to NOT be a me first selfish person who is interested in their own well being alone.

Hateful and cruel? Not those. But self serving above all else? Certainly. And a self serving attitude becomes one that can be cruel and hateful to acheive ones ends.

[Alex]

Actually, I think Alex himself was a little stuck on the word "athiest," when the sentiment of the quote more likely was appropos of the term "agnostic." But people often say one when they mean the other, and so I'm not one to quibble between the two.

To me, saying atheist when you mean agnostic (or in this situation the guy probably means something even less godless than agnostic implies) is about the same as saying tomato when you mean potato. They sound similar but they're really not.

So yes, I may be a bit stuck on the word choice.

[wendybeth]

Whether or not it's difficult to be a good person depends on so many variables, but by and large I think it is hard to consciously follow a moral and ethically positive path. Children are selfish because they are taught to be so, and later we (hopefully) unteach them. (By taught, I mean they are totally taken care of and looked over and waited on, etc). As they mature, they learn to pay it forward. (Usually). The adults have to lead by example, something we all fail at to some degree, but we should try as best we can. Religion can provide direction, but I think it's so important to use the brain that God gave you as well. To me, it seems life would be easier for an atheist. I think most people are innately good, but for those who believe you have to adhere to a certain system of rules and structure or you fall into the sinful category, it's a struggle. Then you have the whole 'leap of faith' thing, which can be very difficult to reconcile in that we humans tend to demand tangible proof before believing in things.

I get irritated by the Jimmy Swaggerts and pervy priests, but they do not affect my belief system in any way. There have always been hypocrites and criminals, and no religion (or non-religion) is immune from the human factor.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm just wondering if there's a Demand-side Mohammed comic?

[wendybeth]

I'm sure there is, but everyone is too afraid to print it.:rolleyes:

[Alex]

What's funny about that is if you took the cartoon posted above and changed nothing in it graphically but in the talk bubbles replaced the word Jesus with Mohammed it would magically become offensive rather than just (arguably) stupid.

[tracilicious]

I actually think it is. As a parent, the hardest thing to do with my children - and I have heard this from other parents as well - is to teach then to NOT be a me first selfish person who is interested in their own well being alone.

Hateful and cruel? Not those. But self serving above all else? Certainly. And a self serving attitude becomes one that can be cruel and hateful to acheive ones ends.


I disagree. I don't even think that the self serving attitude needs to be taught out of children. I think Wendy is right, they are selfish because when they are small and their wants and needs are the same, their needs are (hopefully) met right away. It's an adjustment phase as they get older and have to learn to function as a member of the family, but they will learn it just by watching those around them put others first. Jesus taught by example, did he not?

I'm not addressing this to you, Scaeagles, but what puts me off the most about Christianity (and I'm a Christian) is the parents. Or I should say a lot of the parents that I've encountered. There seems to be a mindset that kids are bad and if they aren't forced to do the right thing they never will. That outlook is what gives sadistic nuts like Ezzo and the Pearls* followers.

I don't think that God created bad people. It only makes sense in terms of Christianity to assume that people are inherently good and giving if we are made in His image.


*Ezzo and the Pearls both write really sick child rearing books advocating child abuse. Several deaths have occured because of these books.

[scaeagles]

I don't think that God created bad people. It only makes sense in terms of Christianity to assume that people are inherently good and giving if we are made in His image.

While it is not my goal to expand this too deep theologically, it is Christian teaching that man is born with a sinful nature. Again, theologically speaking, man was created in the image of God, but then chose sin (whole garden of Eden/fall of man thing).

One of my jobs as a parent is to shape the character of my kids. This does not mean to attempt to alter their personalities and what makes them great individuals. Part of this is presenting my children with responsiblity and choices. Some choices have consequences, and they are are aware of the consequences prior to making a choice. I will rarely force my child to do anything (meaning, for example, I don't allow my 12 year old the option of staying home from school on a whim - I'll put her in the car in her pajamas if that's what it takes, in effect forcing her to go to school), but I will shape their understanding that certain choices have consequences associated with them.

Whether the self serving behavior is learned or is instinctual doesn't really matter to me. The fact is that most two year olds have no concept of how their actions impact those around them. Does that behavior make them bad? No. It makes them human. And I am responsible to teach my children to behave otherwise.

[cirquelover]

Well, if God didn't create bad people than who did? If you believe in God and he created everyone then isn't it logical that he created good and evil?

I think some people are just inherently bad, but that's just me thinking aloud a little too late at night.

Also, I agree we are responsible for shaping our children and trying to get them to see right from wrong. Teaching them that there are consequences for their actions is one of the best lessons we can give them.

[Kevy Baby]

They're not bad. They're just drawn that way.

[tracilicious]

While it is not my goal to expand this too deep theologically, it is Christian teaching that man is born with a sinful nature. Again, theologically speaking, man was created in the image of God, but then chose sin (whole garden of Eden/fall of man thing).

When I say good, I don't mean without sin. By that definition Jesus was the only good man ever. I mean kind, loving, giving, etc. So often people turn out wonderfully in spite of having horrible parents, reinforcing my belief that the goodness in man is hard to squelch.

One of my jobs as a parent is to shape the character of my kids. This does not mean to attempt to alter their personalities and what makes them great individuals. Part of this is presenting my children with responsiblity and choices. Some choices have consequences, and they are are aware of the consequences prior to making a choice. I will rarely force my child to do anything (meaning, for example, I don't allow my 12 year old the option of staying home from school on a whim - I'll put her in the car in her pajamas if that's what it takes, in effect forcing her to go to school), but I will shape their understanding that certain choices have consequences associated with them.

Scaeagles, you've always seemed like a very loving parent. When I talk about some Christian parents bugging me, I'm not necessarily referring to yourself.

I agree that teaching is the most important part of being a parent. I prefer natural consequences to logical, but that doesn't mean that there isn't teaching involved. There are a very few things I would force, and I'm not saying that force is 100% a bad thing, but I'm sure that while you and I might force kids to go to school, we would also find out why our kids so adamantly didn't want to go to school and help them solve the problem.[/quote]

Whether the self serving behavior is learned or is instinctual doesn't really matter to me. The fact is that most two year olds have no concept of how their actions impact those around them. Does that behavior make them bad? No. It makes them human. And I am responsible to teach my children to behave otherwise.

Yes, I agree, teaching must start from a very young age. The attitude I'm referring to that bugs me is one that equates teaching with punishment. Or more pointedly those that feel that the most appropriate way to "teach" a child, however small, to behave is to hit them or otherwise make them suffer. Which, I guess, if your goal is obedience then that's probably effective. If your goal is to have a well grounded moral compass those methods are useless, as the nature of punishment is to teach self-centeredness.

Again, not referring to you, just a lot of Christian parents I've met. It's possible that this isn't a Christian thing, but an American thing. I have a friend in Egypt that is Christian, but he tells me that punishment isn't really used there.

Well, if God didn't create bad people than who did? If you believe in God and he created everyone then isn't it logical that he created good and evil?

I think some people are just inherently bad, but that's just me thinking aloud a little too late at night.

I don't think people are born bad. I think that some choose to do bad things with their lives, but I don't know of anyone on earth that is 100% bad. If people were born bad, wouldn't that absolve them of responsibility? Personally, I've never met a child that wasn't good.

Also, I agree we are responsible for shaping our children and trying to get them to see right from wrong. Teaching them that there are consequences for their actions is one of the best lessons we can give them.

Yes learning how our actions affect ourselves and others is one of the most important things. However, I don't equate teaching about consequences to imposing consequences. Many actions have consequences all their own, and those can definitely be learned from. Most of the circle of parents that I hang out with don't punish, impose, consequences, or use force. Their kids are pretty phenomenal, so I'll probably continue on that path. My kids are little though, so what do I know. :p

[Gemini Cricket]

Rev. Lovejoy: Homer, I'd like you to remember Matthew 7:26. "A foolish man who who built his house on sand.''

Homer: And you remember... Matthew ... 21:17!

Rev. Lovejoy: "And he left them and went out of the city into Bethany and he lodged there''?

Homer: Yeah... (regains his nerve) Think about it!

[scaeagles]

I'm not necessarily referring to yourself.

If your goal is to have a well grounded moral compass those methods are useless, as the nature of punishment is to teach self-centeredness.

My kids are little though, so what do I know. :p

Oh - I understand that. I'm taking no offense - just sharing my philosophy. As there are many different types of parents and many different types of children, there are (and must be) many different types of parenting. Age appropriateness, personality of the child, etc.

I'm not sure I follow this - "the nature of punishment is to teach self-centeredness." How is that so? The nature of punishment is to teach that choices have consequences. With my four year old, we let her know what the consequences will be so it is a clear choice for her. With my 12 year old, she knows that making a choice to do certain things will result in anything from a mild no internet access for a few days to an all out grounding and she doesn't need to be presented with those things before hand.

While natural consequences are fine, when danger is involved, I insert other forms instead. For example, a couple of days ago I was on my elliptical, from which I can see into the room my kids typically are playing in. My 12 and 4 were doing gymnastic type stunts. At one point, my 12 did something with the 4 she was not strong enough to do, nor did my 4 have the balance to do. My 4 fell pretty hard, narrowly missing the corner of a bookshlef with her face. I got off the elliptical and went to make sure everyone was OK, and informed them that if I ever saw them doing it again, the 4 would be spanked (yes, I spank, but only when the child knows spanking will be a consequence of a certain choice, and it never leaves a mark. To the kid, it is just the thought that they have been spanked that is the killer to them.) and the 12 year old would have a week in her room. Natural consequences in that case are not acceptable. I don't want my kid to have 30 stitches on her face to learn a lesson that certain things aren't OK to do.

Wow - that was a diatribe. Carry on now.

[tracilicious]

Oh - I understand that. I'm taking no offense - just sharing my philosophy. As there are many different types of parents and many different types of children, there are (and must be) many different types of parenting. Age appropriateness, personality of the child, etc.

Good. Parenting (like religion, lol) can be a tricky thing to discuss, so let me say ahead of time that I'm pretty opinionated, but my disagreement with certain parenting choices doesn't mean I think that people are bad parents.

I'm not sure I follow this - "the nature of punishment is to teach self-centeredness." How is that so? The nature of punishment is to teach that choices have consequences.

It simply means that it makes kids think mainly about themselves. What's going to happen to me if I do that. If I do this something bad will happen to me. Or after a punishment has been enforced, I think a typical response is not, "Oh, duh, I shouldn't have done that," but rather, "I can't believe they did this to me."

For example, if two small kids are playing and a struggle erupts over a toy and child A hits child B one of two things can happen. If child A's mom steps in and says, "We don't hit! Go to time out right now!" Child A might start crying and go to time out. He's most likely thinking, "I had the toy first! He took it from me! I don't like him anymore." Whereas if child A's mom goes to him and says, "Look child B is crying. That really hurt him. He took your toy and you got mad and hit him. We don't hit! Next time ask mommy for help or say, 'I was playing with that toy!' What can we do to help child B feel better?" At which point child A might suggest giving a hug, or a toy, or saying sorry. Both methods are probably effective at preventing the behavior next time, but only one gives the child the tools to deal with conflict effectively and causes him to think about how his actions affected someone else.


While natural consequences are fine, when danger is involved, I insert other forms instead. For example...



I know that many parents that don't often punish will do so if they believe that it will prevent their child from being hurt. While I disagree pretty strongly against spanking (as in I think the countries that have legislation against it rock), I can understand the logic there.

I hope you don't mind me using your example to illustrate my own personal opinion. In that case, natural consequences had already occured. They did something dangerous, someone got hurt. I suppose I would have made sure everyone was ok while showing a great deal of concern to drive the point home that they did a very scary thing. Then talked to them about why that was dangerous and really stressed that it isn't a safe thing to do. I'm sure that the 12 year old doesn't want to hurt the four year old and the four year old doesn't want to fall on her head, so it's unlikely that they would try again. If I really felt the need to impose a consequence then I suppose I would say that if they attempted anything dangerous like that again then gymnastics wouldn't be allowed until they were ready to be responsible.

I think as a society we value compliance a bit too much. It seems as though when people talk about a "good" child, what they really mean is an obedient child. Punishment is certainly effective at teaching obedience, but I think that it's effectiveness stops there. I think it impedes the thought process necessary to connect actions with their meaningful consequences. While you may get a child who doesn't engage in desirable behaviors (at least not when the punisher is looking), I don't think it gives kids the tools they need to grow into the kind of people that parents want them to grow into. I think it also teaches the lesson that might makes right.

So blah blah blah I know this is a huge derail. Feel free to continue talking about whatever this thread was originally about.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I agree with everything Alex said in this thread. (sorry Alex)The single most cause of atheism in our world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out of the church doors and deny Him with their lifestyle.I think that quote works if you change the word "atheist" to "Ex-Christians".

[tracilicious]

What exactly is supply side whatever?

[wendybeth]

From Wikipedia:

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomic) thought which emphasizes the "supply" part of "supply and demand". The central concept of supply-side economics is Say's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_Law): "supply creates its own demand", or the idea that one must produce before one has the means to buy. In evaluating public policy, supply-side economics is more concerned with the extent to which a reform will change producer incentives, rather than how it may stimulate demand. This emphasis represents a fundamental difference between classical, supply-side economics and Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics) or demand side economics.
Supply-side economics was popularized in the 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s) by Robert Mundell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mundell), Arthur Laffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Laffer), and Jude Wanniski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski). The term was coined by Wanniski in 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975). In 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978) Jude Wanniski published The Way the World Works in which he laid out the central thesis of supply-side economics and detailed the failure of high tax-rate, "progressive" income tax systems and U.S. monetary policy under Keynesians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian) in the 1970s. Wanninski advocated lower tax rates and a return to some kind of gold standard, à la the 1944-1971 Bretton Woods System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_System).
In 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983), economist Victor Canto, a disciple of Arthur Laffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer), published The Foundations of Supply-Side Economics. This theory focuses on the effects of marginal tax rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_tax_rate) on the incentive to work and save (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving), which affect the growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth) of the "supply side" or what Keynesians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian) call potential output (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_output). While the latter focus on changes in the rate of supply-side growth in the long run, the "new" supply-siders often promised short-term results.
Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle down economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics).


The article also mentions Al Franken's cartoon, which started this thread.:D

[Alex]

Unfortunately, as a political football supply side economics has come to mean simply 'tax cuts' and the idea that some tax cuts can spur further economic growth which will still produce similar or higher tax revenues than without the tax
cuts.

Which is an idea with some (but limited) merit but which over time has come to be the idea that cutting any tax by any size will have the same impact. This is nonsense.

[tracilicious]

So what does any of this have to do with Jesus?

[wendybeth]

Supply-side economics are generally associated with conservative politics, many of whom subscribe to the theory but only follow through on portions of the tenets. (Such as the type of tax cutting Alex referred to above). Critics and more cynical people like myself think that it's just a ploy to keep money in the rich person's pockets while letting the poor fend for themselves. Jesus did not hold the rich in high regard, as such statements as "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to reach heaven" and "the meek shall inherit the earth" bear out. He had a real problem with the Pharisees, a well-to-do and influential religious sect in the Jewish community, who were not very good about taking care of the poor, and arrogantly thought that their largess was bestowed upon them (from God) because they were righteous. Of course, this is a really simplistic take on a very complicated history and economic theory, but Franken was pointing out that Jesus probably wasn't a supply-side sort of guy.