What is the issue over paid maternity leave?

[Sparko]

I am simply referring to the self-centred pecuniary concerns of various contributors to this thread.,

No you are just trolling.

I guessed you would make that response to get yourself nicely out of actually recognising the text for what it states.

Gee maybe because you already knew that it WAS Jesus speaking to a specific person regarding HIS problem and not giving general advice about money?

However, that isn't actually what Jesus says in Mark 10.21. He does not tell the young man to give a part of his wealth to the poor he tells him to "sell what you own" - in other words everything.

Again, Jesus knew that the young man's problem was his love of money was keeping him from following Jesus. It was Jesus' way of pointing that out to him. It was not Jesus telling everyone to sell everything and give it to the poor. They would then be poor themselves.

Where did Jesus say steal money from someone else and give that money to the poor? That is what you are proposing.

I suspected you would find an excuse to justify the preoccupation of some here with Mammon.

You propose a story that you KNOW doesn't apply to the situation, then claim "I knew it" when it is pointed out to you that it doesn't apply, then call that an excuse and repeat your initial accusation.

How H_A of you.

I have stopped taking you seriously months ago. You are either a troll or some insane liberal cat lady, or maybe both.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No you are just trolling.

To paraphrase a line "Well you would say that".

Gee maybe because you already knew that it WAS Jesus speaking to a specific person regarding HIS problem and not giving general advice about money?

The incident in Mark 10.21 would appear to have a wider implication but many who call themselves Christian find the demand too onerous because it would require them to adopt the ascetic life of their eponymous founder who believed the Kingdom of God was imminent and material possessions were therefore of no importance.

Again, Jesus knew that the young man's problem was his love of money was keeping him from following Jesus.

Like some here perhaps?

It was Jesus' way of pointing that out to him. It was not Jesus telling everyone to sell everything and give it to the poor. They would then be poor themselves.

I am half expecting someone here to advocate the Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus.

I note that you have also assiduously avoided addressing the comments that I quoted from the article that was linked by Mountain Man.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A better question than the one of the OP --- Why should others pay for a woman's maternity leave?

And where does it stop? Should we force employers to pay for employees to care for their sick parent? Time off to care for a dying spouse?

And it's interesting that those who are pro-abortion suddenly care about a living baby, and want to force somebody else to pay for that mother to care for the newborn.

Rev. Barnhart had a valid point. The unborn are so much cheaper, aren't they?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Further, AFAICT, nobody is objecting to helping anybody. The resistance is against using coercion to make others do so.

Do you refuse to pay tax to provide for things of which you do not approve?

[Sparko]

To paraphrase a line "Well you would say that".

No, I did say that.

The incident in Mark 10.21 would appear to have a wider implication but many who call themselves Christian find the demand too onerous because it would require them to adopt the ascetic life of their eponymous founder who believed the Kingdom of God was imminent and material possessions were therefore of no importance.

You are just showing your ignorance again. But I am not surprised at your lack of understanding.

Like some here perhaps?

No, we already follow Jesus. Maybe you? Have you sold everything and given it to the poor yet? Why not?

I am half expecting someone here to advocate the Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus.

We will leave that up to you.

I note that you have also assiduously avoided addressing the comments that I quoted from the article that was linked by Mountain Man.

I have no idea what you are referring to, and why would I address it?

I notice you have assiduously avoided addressing my asking you this:

Where did Jesus say steal money from someone else and give that money to the poor?

[Cow Poke]

Rev. Barnhart had a valid point. The unborn are so much cheaper, aren't they?

I don't give a flying flip what Rev. Barnhart said, and you're still an dishonest little .

[Cow Poke]

Do you refuse to pay tax to provide for things of which you do not approve?

"Paying Tax" is very binary. You either pay the taxes or you don't. We can't pick and choose what our taxes pay for, other than by voting out the leftist morons who believe they know better about spending our money than we do.

[Gondwanaland]

Rev. Barnhart had a valid point.

Don't know who "Rev. Barnhart" is, nor why you are obsessed with him/her, nor why we should care what he/she has to say about anything. That you think he/she has a valid point about something is a good sign that no such valid point exists, given your history on this forum with that whole "bounty hunter" thread and the clueless nitwit you quoted who you thought had a "valid point".

[Cow Poke]

Don't know who "Rev. Barnhart" is, nor why you are obsessed with him/her, nor why we should care what he/she has to say about anything. That you think he/she has a valid point about something is a good sign that no such valid point exists, given your history on this forum with that whole "bounty hunter" thread and the clueless nitwit you quoted who you thought had a "valid point".

So, just like the dumb "Texas Bounty Hunter" thread, she has to derail her own thread with derail after derail trying to draw attention away from her blunder.

The problem is that she has ZERO understanding of our our tax system and our welfare system and our free enterprise system and our legislative system.....

Heck, what is there she DOES understand? (Aside from continually trying to sound smarter than she actually is)

[Cow Poke]

So let's review...

Some women appear to think they deserve 12 weeks of pay for doing nothing but staying home and being a mom.
Something MY Mom did 9 times for FREE 9 times.

Because SOME women think they deserve 12 weeks of pay to do nothing but what they should do for the love of their little one, the liberals see a need to punish the employer or the taxpayer for that woman's lack of planning and preparation.

It's like that old wisdom thing --- "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part --- unless you're willing to pay for it".

Same here - lack of planning on the part of a woman in getting pregnant is not something I should be obliged to support, unless I was her partner in conception.

[mossrose]

So let's review...

Some women appear to think they deserve 12 weeks of pay for doing nothing but staying home and being a mom.
Something MY Mom did 9 times for FREE 9 times.

I only did it twice! Your Mom was spectacular!

[Cow Poke]

I only did it twice! Your Mom was spectacular!

And THEN she took in Foster Kids!!!

[mossrose]

And THEN she took in Foster Kids!!!

Wow!

[Cow Poke]

Wow!

And look at ME -- I turned out spectaculatorially!!! Even without mom making other people pay for her to stay home and raise me.

[mossrose]

And look at ME -- I turned out spectaculatorially!!! Even without mom making other people pay for her to stay home and raise me.

Gotta love moms who stay home and look after their own kids. Doing what God made them to do!