QE1 Didn't Work, QE2 Won't Work, And QE 12 Won't Work Either

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false

Joe G said...

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

…

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

…

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3



As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4


‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

...


1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Do You “Believe” In “Evolution”?

Yet again, we have this utterly meaningless question asked of an electoral candidate during a debate, in an attempt to discredit her. My response, had I been asked this question, would have been as follows:

Does evolution mean that living things have changed over time? Does evolution mean universal common ancestry? Does evolution mean that random errors filtered by natural selection explain all of biology, including the origin of the functionally specified information encoded in the base-four digital code of the DNA molecule, along with the information-processing machinery that translates it, performs error detection and repair, and much more?

If your definition of “evolution” is the latter, can you supply us with adequate evidence that the probabilistic resources have existed to make this hypothesis a reasonable inference?

Had the debate host, who asked the question in the title of my post, been presented with such a challenge, I can guarantee what his answer would have been:

Huh?

ADVICE TO #GOP CANDIDATES: AVOID ADJECTIVES, NOUNS ARE GOOD ENOUGH

There is no need, this year, to load up negative ads with adjectives painting your opponents as evil, big spenders in the thrall of the DC establishment. The simple facts of your opponents’ voting records are enough to defeat them. Just the facts, ma’am.

Republican negative ad writers always delight in describing the Stimulus package as bloated, wasteful, government-growing, and useless. The adjectives get in the way. The polling we’ve done indicates that the simple words “stimulus package” convey all that and more.

There is no need to call Obama’s health care legislation “a government attempt to take over our health care” or a bill to “slash medical care for the elderly” or an “attempt to force rationing of care.” The simple word Obamacare conveys the same meanings.

Why describe cap and trade as “job killing” or “driving jobs overseas” when the words cap and trade say these same things to voters?

Ads are effective for the response they elicit from the viewers. The more they catalyze a response inside the mind of the voter, the more effective they are. Ads that are heavy on adjectives and have the look and feel of an attack ad run into credibility problems with the average voter. One rebels against a heavy handed attack and you find yourself fighting against the ad, even if you basically believe it to be true. The more even handed and credible the ad is, the more it will be believed.

Leftwing Media Bashing Each Other: Rick Sanchez Calls Jon Stewart “A Bigot”; Says CNN Is Run By Jews

I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah. - Rick Sanchez

Why CNN totally blew the Rick Sanchez Firing

But the focus of my ire is not on Rick Sanchez, all dopes ultimately do themselves in. I am really angry at CNN. Here is CNN's official statement about Rick departure. “Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well.“
NO! NO! NO! This is a classic example as to why CNN is failing and other media outlets are doing so much better. CNN, let me be crystal clear; Grab a sack, and take a stand. Here is what your statement should have said.
"In light of Rick Sanchez's radio interview, we have fired him. Sanchez's views, which in our view, are clearly anti-Semitic, demand an immediate response, and our response is this, we have asked him to leave CNN immediately. We object strongly to Sanchez's statement that Jon Stewart is a bigot. We also object to Sanchez's statement that the Jewish management at CNN would not advance his career. CNN's management is not characterized by race nor religion. The company that Rick Sanchez described is not our company. We believe in freedom of expression, and we do not care if opinions expressed on our airwaves are not politically correct. We do object when our own employees simply misstate the facts, and allow their own egos to cloud their thinking."
Additionally, CNN should air their own dirty laundry on CNN. This is the perfect topic for Larry King and Joy Behar and all the other talk show hosts. My guess, however, is that, huge mistake number two, CNN probably won't talk about this on the air at all.
Sometimes giant mistakes provide giant opportunities. CNN completely blew that chance here.

Link

VID: Jon Stewart a Bigot - Rick Sanchez

Even it up 9/11: Burn the Koran. U.S. military burned Bibles that were sent to Afghanistan

But Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association (AFA), thinks it is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. government to condemn the church, considering the fact that the U.S. military incinerated Bibles that were sent to Afghanistan in May 2009.

Bryan Fischer (Amer. Family Assn.)"There's really a staggering level of hypocrisy and double standard here for the military to burn the Holy Bible and then complain when a pastor's going to do the same thing to the Quran," Fischer contends. "You know, if the military was going to be fair here and even-handed, they would count up the number of Holy Bibles that they incinerated in Afghanistan, and then they would allow Reverend Jones to burn the same number of Qurans."

The AFA issues analysis director believes the whole incident illustrates the difference between Christianity and Islam. "When these Bibles were burned [in May 2009], the Christian community did not riot in the streets; we did not threaten violence against anyone," he points out. "[But] when even the threat of Qurans being burned takes place, it's like we're dealing with Armageddon [or] with World War III."

In a OneNewsNow poll conducted in May 2009, more than 60 percent of respondents said -- in reaction to the decision by the U.S. military to destroy the Bibles -- that "if it had been the Quran, this never would have happened."

Is Obama a Christian? Is Palin?

"We do have pretty good evidence that neither Obama nor Palin is a Muslim, however. Islam requires of its believers visible actions, such as praying four times a day and fasting during Ramadan. I think someone would have noticed."

Perhaps when Feisal Abdul Rauf tells him to he will bow down 4 times daily.

VID: Are tax cuts the right approach to fix the economy? Let's ask JFK.

Obama vs. JFK on taxes

Morgan Stanley Says US Government Defaults Inevitable

While the U.S. government’s debt is 53 percent of GDP, one of the lowest ratios among developed nations, its debt as a percentage of revenue is 358 percent, one of the highest, the report said. Italy has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios, at 116 percent, yet has a debt-to-revenue ratio of 188, Mares said.

Read more:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/morgan-stanley-says-government-bond-default-is-question-of-how-not-if-.html

Stupid Lies Democrats Believe / Left's Culture of Hate

What About the Stupid Lies Democrats Believe?
By Larry Elder
… Liberals should be sympathetic. They are quite adept at willfully refusing to face facts, if necessary, to support wrongheaded views. Here are some examples:
“The rich don’t pay taxes.” False. For the 2007 tax year (the latest income tax data year released by the IRS), the top 1 percent of income earners, those making over $410,000 a year, paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those making about $160,000 a year or more, paid 60 percent of all federal income taxes. Yet according to a 2008 IBD/TIPP poll, only 12 percent of Americans knew what the rich, in fact, paid in taxes. And liberals are likelier to get it wrong.
“The rich exclusively benefited from the Bush tax cuts.” MSNBC’s insufferable lefty Ed Schultz said: “Ninety-eight percent of you, it (the Bush tax cuts) doesn’t even affect you.” False. In a recent New York Times editorial, the liberal paper said extending the cuts to the non-rich—a policy it favors—would “cost” about $140 billion next year. Extending the cuts to the rich—a policy it opposes—would “cost” about $40 billion next year. If the tax cuts only benefit the rich, why would the Treasury “lose” more money from the non-rich than it would “lose” from the rich?
“The Bush tax cuts caused the deficit.” CNN’s liberal host Fareed Zakaria said, “The Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit.” False. In 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion. In 2007, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion—a 39 percent increase. Unfortunately, outlays increased almost as much. In 2002, outlays were $2.01 trillion. In 2007—the last year before the recession and before TARP, the various “stimulus” programs, bailouts and ObamaCare—outlays were $2.73 trillion, a 36 percent increase.
“Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.” Thirty-five percent of Democrats, according to a 2007 Rasmussen poll, believe President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, and 26 percent are “not sure.” False. This was investigated years earlier and refuted by the 2004 bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.
“George W. Bush ‘stole’ the 2000 election.” False. In November 2001, The New York Times wrote: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.” …

*      *     *      *      *

The Left’s Culture of Hate
By Dennis Prager
… In the left’s worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks — opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays. This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say “There are good people on both sides of the issue” because we actually believe it.
Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left’s need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.
I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, “Islamophobic” or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other. …
Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?
Because leftism holds these beliefs:
1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.
2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure. …

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

But there is much more to be said of this data and Hoven does an admirable job of summarizing the highlights of such an analysis:
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq. For more from Hoven, go here.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html#ixzz0xaksfTx0

Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America

Links:
- signers of the Declaration of Independence
- signers of the Articles of Confederation
- Constitutional Convention delegates including signers of the U.S. Constitution
 
Ennumerating the Founding Fathers
The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)
There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.
There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers	# of Founding Fathers	% of Founding Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican	88	54.7%
Presbyterian	30	18.6%
Congregationalist	27	16.8%
Quaker	7	4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed	6	3.7%
Lutheran	5	3.1%
Catholic	3	1.9%
Huguenot	3	1.9%
Unitarian	3	1.9%
Methodist	2	1.2%
Calvinist	1	0.6%
TOTAL	204

The Religious Affiliation of Third U.S. President Thomas Jefferson

By some of the more narrowly-conceived definitions of the word "Christian" which are in use today, particularly among Evangelicals since the 1940s, it is entirely possible that Jefferson's beliefs would mark him as a "non-Christian." Defining Jefferson as a non-Christian must be done purely on contemporary theological grounds, because he was clearly a Christian with regards to his ethics, conduct, upbringing, and culture. Furthermore, to define Jefferson as a "non-Christian" requires using definitions retroactively to classify Jefferson counter to his own self-concept and the commonly understood meanings of words during his own time.

Adherents of other religious groups, including atheists and agnostics, also point to various writings of Jefferson which are in harmony with their positions. The difficulty in classifying Jefferson using a single word for religious affiliation does not stem from a lack of information, but rather a wealth of writing -- which can be interpreted differently depending on a person's perspective. Jefferson left a considerable amount of writing on political and philosophical issues, as well as writing about religion, including the "Jefferson Bible."

In a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a "Deist" with regards to religious affiliation is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement. This is a word that describes a theological position more than an actual religious affiliation, and as such it is of limited use from a sociological perspective. If one defines the term "Deist" broadly enough, then the writing of nearly every U.S. president or prominent historical figure could be used to classify them as a "Deist," so classifying people as such without at least some evidence of nominal self-identification is not very useful.

Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian? Debunking Both Sides

It's interesting that in these absurd culture wars the truth is ignored. On the side of the Religious Right Dr. Kennedy will try to define Jefferson/others as like himself, believing that gives him legitimacy. Same for the radical atheist/socialist left. The fact is both are pathological liars with a political agenda. As a traditional Deist, I'm at odds with both of these groups and so would Jefferson if alive today. Their only real goal is to see who gets the gun they will point at everyone else's head.

Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian?

So what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.

Jefferson, who gave his money to assist missionary work among the Indians, believed his "abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians" would help civilize and educate America's aboriginal inhabitants. Nor did Jefferson cut all miracles from his work, as Beliles points out. While the original manuscript no longer exists, the Table of Texts that survives includes several accounts of Christ's healings.

But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?

VID: The Democrat JetBlue Flight

Religious Founders? Read Their Writings

What makes revisionism so effective is that few citizens actually take time to confrm revisionists' claims or to proclaim to the public the real facts.

Speaking for Themselves
Since the goal of Morris and others like him is to “prove” that people of faith have no precedent for being involved in politics, he characterizes the Founders' general religious beliefs with the same false summary that most revisionists — both in academia and media — often proclaim:

The early presidents and patriots were generally deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the relevance of the Bible.

Yet, the Founders' own declarations in their last wills and testaments [5] disprove those assertions and speak loud and clear that the great majority of our Founders were indeed believers in Jesus Christ. For example:

• First of all, I . . . rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration
  
  
• To my Creator I resign myself, humbly confding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution
  
  
• I resign my soul into the hands of the Almighty who gave it in humble hopes of his mercy through our Savior Jesus Christ. Gabriel Duvall, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; selected as delegate to Constitutional Convention
  
  
• This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed. Patrick Henry
  
  
• I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son. . . . Blessed be his holy name. John Jay, Original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court
  
  
• I am constrained to express my adoration of . . . the Author of my existence . . . [for] His forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state. Robert Treat Paine, Signer of the Declaration
  
  
• I think it proper here not only to subscribe to . . . doctrines of the Christian religion . . . but also, in the bowels of a father's affection, to exhort and charge them [my children] that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness. Richard Stockton, Signer of the Declaration

These wills represent only a few examples from many with the identical tone. Furthermore, the personal writings of numerous other Founders contain equally strong declarations. Notice:

• My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God. [6] John Quincy Adams
  
  
• Now to the triune God, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore ­p; Amen.[7] Gunning Bedford, Signer of the Constitution
  
  
• You have been instructed from your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature — the absolute necessity of a change of heart, and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ ­p; of salvation thro' His meritorious righteousness only — and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. [8] Elias Boudinot, Revolutionary Officer and President of the Continental Congress (to his daughter)
  
  
• You do well to learn . . . above all the religion of Jesus Christ. [9] George Washington
  
  
• [D]on't forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head and I hope an indelible impression is made. [10] Jacob Broom, Signer of the Constitution (to his son)
  
  
• On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts. [11] Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration
  
  
• I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. [12] Thomas Jefferson
  
  
• I think the Christian religion is a Divine institution; and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principles and practice. [13] James Iredell, U.S. Supreme Court Justice under President George Washington
  
  
• My only hope of salvation is in the infnite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly! [14] Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration
  
  
• I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him. [15] Roger Sherman, Signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution
  
  
• I shall now entreat . . . you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for "there is no salvation in any other" [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish. [16] John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

There are many other examples.

Summary
The evidence is clear; the revisionists are wrong. Although there was some anti-organized-religion sentiment among the Founders (e.g., Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Charles Lee, Henry Dearborn), those with such views were a small minority and, in fact, often were strongly criticized by others for those beliefs.

It is time that Christians retake the academic high ground. When historically false editorials or letters-to-the-editor are written, or when call-in programs make reckless charges, we need to stand up and confront those errors. This will provide an opportunity for those who are undecided on the issue of public religious expressions to formulate their opinions from accurate information rather than from revisionist trash. The most effective defense against revisionism is aggressive truth — and lots of it! If we will faithfully present the truth, the Scriptures assure us that it will eventually prevail.

The Bible mandates free market capitalism. It is anti-socialist. The proof is here.

The essence of democratic socialism is this re-written version of God's commandment: "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote."

"Economic democracy" is the system whereby two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner.
Christian socialists and defenders of economic planning by state bureaucrats deeply resent this interpretation of their ethical position. They resent it because it's accurate.
When Christianity adheres to the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces free market capitalism.
On the other hand, when Christianity rejects the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces socialism or some politically run hybrid "middle way" between capitalism and socialism, where politicians and bureaucrats make the big decisions about how people's wealth will be allocated. Economic growth then slows or is reversed. Always.
Free market capitalism produces long-term economic growth. Socialism and middle-way economic interventionism by the state produce poverty and bureaucracy. If your goal is to keep poor people poor, generation after generation, you should promote socialism. But be sure to call it economic democracy in order to fool the voters.
The Bible is an anti-socialist document. Socialist propagandists for over four centuries have claimed that the Bible teaches socialism, but we have yet to see a single Bible commentary written by a socialist. If the Bible teaches socialism, where is the expository evidence?
When I say that the Bible mandates a moral and legal social order that inevitably produces free market capitalism, I have the evidence to back up my position. My critics -- critics of capitalism -- do not.
The next time you hear someone say that the Bible teaches anything but free market capitalism, ask him or her which Bible commentary demonstrates this. You will get a blank stare followed by a lot of verbal tap-dancing about "the ultimate ethic of the Bible" or "the upholding of the poor in the Bible." You will be given a lot of blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah is not a valid substitute for biblical exposition.