[TheRealThing]

⬆ Pure fiction: I did not argue that income inequality is solely the rich mistreating the poor. That is your straw. I do not suggest that the able to work but refusing leeching resources is mutually exclusive to "big soft leather chairs and mahogany board room tables" existing in a structure which strokes the haves and strikes the most vulnerable is a mutually exclusive reality. That is your either/or fallacy. You continue to plant bones then sniff them out. Apparenly, all nuance of opinion is "talking out of both sides of the mouth" to you. Your ilk is of the very mindset that keeps this country gridlocked.

Christ gave the wealth to the Enron insiders? What rot is that? By this reasoning, the money changers at the temple were angels in disguise. Giant rot.

You argue from that perspective nearly every time you've posted on this forum. But your new posting aura is most impressive, just act like you're certain, state things in categorical terms and everybody will really believe you then boy! :please:

I said those who teach some kind of a great financial reversal make that argument, and so did you when you said God has threatened rich people in your earlier post in which you stated He will flip the field on the rich as if they're all inherently evil. Here is what John H Armstrong teaches about the nature of the great reversal:

"In summary, the poor are not loved more by God than the rich. The “preference” for them is not rooted in their being “better” than any other class or people. The “preference” is itself a display of God’s deep love for all people, [SIZE="3"]especially those who are trampled on and mistreated by the rich and those who oppress."[/SIZE]

And here is Katie Funk Wiebe's take on the meaning of the great reversal:

The Great Reversal,” a term coined by historian Timothy L. Smith, refers to the switchback evangelicals made in the early part of this century from evangelical social concern to individualism. The early church, both in England and America, was noted for its social involvement, establishing welfare societies such as the Salvation Army, schools for immigrants, homes for unwed mothers, city missions, and agencies to help the poor, the sick, prisoners, and other needy folk. The church supported legislation to bring about social justice.

Of course all the above was going down prior to the inception of comprehensive welfare, which makes those efforts to help look like child's play. Either way, this is all a liberal notion which explains why you're so all-in on it. And I don't buy for the first second that the Lord has any kind of preference for the poor as indicated by Armstrong. If God is no respecter of persons, it has to be no respecter of rich or poor. But if I thought there was the slightest chance you could do it, I'd suggest that you need to decide whether you want to talk about white collar crime or what you errantly refer to as income inequality, but I know better than to waste my time. As the situation at Enron demonstrates, people are often guilty of corruption and graft. But so too is the guy who charges a 90 year old widow too much to repair her roof. We're not talking about criminals here. We're talking about your social justice notion that everybody must be paid enough to live the dream, whether that be a Walmart greeter or whatever. The union trades have a mantra, a good day's work for a fair day's pay. I don't know call me crazy, but I don't think a guy shoving burgers out the window at McDonald's should make a comparable wage to a union craftsman.

The liberal loves to equivocate and to him, everything (that is all truth) is relative. Whereas The Lord hates middle ground ambiguities from what I can see,
Matthew 5:37 (KJV)
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

At least you did get one thing right, I am an either/or enthusiast.