What about the neighbors next door though?

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

That’s merely an assumption based on a stereotype you have about people like this. Just because reason may have failed with other people like that in the past doesn’t mean it’s not going to work with this one, especially if you haven’t even tried to reason with them and immediately go for the bigger gun of ostracism (i.e. firing).

It is not reasonable to deprive someone of their source of income for having an opinion you don’t like. It IS reasonable to tell them that their opinion doesn’t belong in the company chat, and give them a warning that disciplinary action may result if they do it again.

Nobody else should have to put up with an uncomfortable work environment, social club, or anything else, because we have to make accommodations to be tolerant of bigots.

You’re excusing hatred with bigotry. The same argument could be used to exclude transgender people.

I am aware of that paradox but I think it’s misguided, because it’s essentially just an excuse for neverending violence and revolution. Anytime you punish someone for not adhering to some sort of group standards, you aren’t likely change their minds about those standards being a moral good. Some might relent and begrudgingly go along with them, but others will not, and in time they’ll accumulate. At some point, there will be enough of them to overthrow the status quo, and then your intolerance will be replaced with theirs. So the result is that you live in an eternal state of intolerance, all in the name of tolerance. It’s a sucker’s game, and only fools are dumb enough to go along with it.

If you cannot defend your standards using reason, they are immoral, and they’ll eventually be overthrown and abolished, as they should.

I’m afraid without any further explanation from the OP we really don’t know that.

Right, so you show them who’s the bigger person by being just as intolerant to them as they were to you…

Well, that’s why I asked for clarification, didn’t I.

So they fired him without even giving him a warning? Sounds kinda excessive if you ask me. Like, sure, stuff like that doesn’t belong in the company chat app but losing your job over it seems a bit harsh.

What types of poor decisions?

Poor decisions with regard to the use of their natural (i.e. God-given) talents. Nobody is ever going to make perfect decisions in all areas of their lives, and that’s not what Jesus requires, either. After all, the whole point of people having different talents is for them to work to together so they can complement each other’s abilities.

From the top level comment of the comment thread I read it as finance as that’s the thing related to food in the original post.

My point was merely to show that the biblical Jesus does in fact stop investing in people because he’s not seeing any results from them. It’s not really my fault if you’re reading in things about shareholder value or whatever, is it?

Supply Side Jesus on the other hand tells us that it’s not worth investing our time and resources into people who are poor, and that instead the rich will lead us to have an efficient church.

Yes, but remember that Supply Side Jesus is a caricature, and it’s created by exaggerating certain aspects of Jesus and diminishing others. But so is socialist Jesus, who only heals and feeds people for free and never asks for anything in return.

That is fundamentally backwards to Christianity, as it is the poor, the hurt and the suffering who need it the most.

I agree, and there are plenty of exhortations on that in the Gospel where Jesus reminds people to use their riches to take care of the poor among them. But he does not let the poor off the hook either, like in the story you mentioned earlier with the poor woman giving what little she has being more righteous than the rich man who donates very little. Meanwhile, proponents of socialist Jesus seem to think they should only ever receive blessings and not be asked to give anything back. They are like the guy in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, who had his debt forgiven by his master and then beat up his fellow man for owing him a fraction of that.

The long and short of it is that in order for the whole Jesus thing to work, you cannot just sit around all day and wait to be fed. You do at least have to make an effort to contribute something, however little it might me, otherwise you’re wasting your talents.

Thanks for your response, but I don’t think I was promoting prosperity gospel? I understand that this parable is a favorite of theirs, but as you correct pointed out, there’s more to Jesus than that, and the point of the parable is by no means to rag on poor people, but on people who make poor decisions.

My understanding is that if someone has little talent but still makes the most of it, that person is still more welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven than someone who has a lot but makes little use of it. In other words, if it was the servant who received the most money who ended up burying it and making no profit, it would have been him who would be cast out instead. See also the Parable of the Wedding Feast, where everyone receives exactly the same (an invitation to the king’s wedding), but one person shows up without the proper clothes on.

The meme is attempting to caricature Conservative’s idea of Jesus by alleging that the biblical Jesus would never put profit over people. But as the parables I mentioned show, that is in fact inaccurate and thus promotes a liberal caricature of Jesus who feeds people endlessly without ever asking for anything in return.

How will disputes be settled then?

I appreciate your honesty.

All guests were given the garment for free.

Where does it say that?

Okay, then perhaps the guy in the OPs meme wasn’t chosen either

Okay but it still roughly fits the situation in the OP, doesn’t it? He got thrown out because he wasn’t producing the expected result (i.e. being a proper wedding guest).

It’s a caricature Al Franken (who went on to become a Democrat senator) came up with for his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

You can see some of the original comics here: https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx

Okay, but that’s exactly what’s happening in the OP’s picture, isn’t it?

I mean, without any context we are left to assume what “lack of results” means but if all he did was eat and made no effort to spread the gospel, then he’s basically the wicked servant in that parable, no?

Godwin’s Law strikes again

Right, which implies that the God of your religion is the state, because that’s who you want to give supreme authority to.

That’s certainly a take.

I mean, I hope I’m not saying anything too controversial here, but I think it’s pretty well understood that one of the major theological differences between Christians and Jews is how they feel about Jesus.