I don't believe in evolution... (2)

Zongerfield said:

Caring for these people shouldn't be compulsory, government mandated. We have charities for a reason. No one should rob Peter to pay Paul.

Click to expand...

Is having it God-mandated any better -- or any different, for that matter?

Zongerfield said:

Caring for these people shouldn't be compulsory, government mandated. We have charities for a reason. No one should rob Peter to pay Paul.

I believe in a Constitutionally limited government. We've already gone beyond the "limits" our forefathers originally established. Now we're indebted up to our ears and on the verge of a double-dip recession. Tough decisions have to be made. And you don't weaken the strong to heal the sick.

Click to expand...

... Unless it's for military defense, police protection or other basic services, right?

Zongerfield said:

Caring for these people shouldn't be compulsory, government mandated. We have charities for a reason. No one should rob Peter to pay Paul.

Click to expand...

Okay. Ignoring the fact that taxation by definition is NOT robbery I don't think you have biblical support for this statement either. The bible does speak much about both what we are supposed to do as individuals and as society.

In fact, a couple of relevant verses:

“Give onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and onto God that which is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21) and “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king“ 1 Peter 2:13-17

Besides, Prov. 31:8 says the following as a commandment to kings: “Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”. Another such example is Jer. 7:5-7.

A good verse, I think is Jer. 22:16 “Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is that not what it means to know Me?” declares the LORD.". Interesting, isn't it? Here the bible says that it is pleading the cause of the afflicted and needy is what it is to know God.
So why does Clirus especially, plead against the weak and the poor? Why does it appear to me that you do the same?

Zongerfield said:

I believe in a Constitutionally limited government. We've already gone beyond the "limits" our forefathers originally established. Now we're indebted up to our ears and on the verge of a double-dip recession. Tough decisions have to be made. And you don't weaken the strong to heal the sick.

Click to expand...

This is another area where I don't know where you get your basis from Z. First off, your forefathers were not gods. Besides they lived in a radically different time, and their policies and approach which made sense then do need to be modified for today. Slavery=bad is one difference. You can't apply centuries old policies to a modern system without some level of adjustment first.
Secondly, your recessions have largely been caused by too little control, not too much. Your debt by too little taxation, not too much. Goodness, your credit rating is falling and the experts say to stop the fall the best thing you can do is to remove the Bush tax cuts and then increase taxes further. It's that or bust some say.

As for your 'don't weaken the strong to heal the sick', why not? As an analogy it will weaken a strong man to carry a person out of a burning house. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The strong have a duty to use their strength for the benefit of others, not simply for their own material gain.

Observe if you will what Jesus taught about the rich. Observe what the bible says about the role of the rich. Observe what the bible says of those who do NOT fulfil that role. You may say that the strong should not have an obligation to help, but the bible shows that for that God has burned entire cities (Ezek. 16:49, Ezek. 22:29,31.). He warns of devastation (Is. 10:1-3, James 5:1-6, Luke 16:19-25, Mt. 25:31-46)


I end this post by Jer. 5:28.”[The wicked] do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people?” declares the LORD. “On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?”
Heed the word of God, zongerfield. Like you say you do.

Originally Posted by sdmsanjose http://www.christianforums.com/t7548635-post57373227/#post57373227
I have read several of your posts where you focus on cutting the services to the poor, the sick, elderly, widows and their children. Why do you concentrate on cutting those people?

Reply by Zongerfield
Caring for these people shouldn't be compulsory, government mandated. We have charities for a reason. No one should rob Peter to pay Paul.

I believe in a Constitutionally limited government. We've already gone beyond the "limits" our forefathers originally established. Now we're indebted up to our ears and on the verge of a double-dip recession. Tough decisions have to be made. And you don't weaken the strong to heal the sick.

Click to expand...

Zongerfield
We are fortunate in this country as we have a REPRESENATIVE form of government. Our tax dollars are going to be spent on something; either military, corporate welfare, services to the poor, etc. We citizens can let our representative know our attitudes and spiritual beliefs by voicing our desires to them. Most politicians are harlots for votes and will change their position depending on the desires of the voters.

Charities have only met a fraction of the needs of the poor, sick, and elderly. By your position on this issue, I would not be surprised that churches with people like you in them probably do not do much for the poor, elderly, and sick. If the governement had not chosen to step in and help out then many more of the poor, sick, hungry, etc would be left out. You seem much more focused on pointing out other people’s faults and very interested in your political opinion about cutting the less fortunate people out.

There is no doubt that we are “…indebted up to our ears” and sacrifices have to be made. So far you have not mentioned one thing about cutting corporate welfare and removing the tax breaks that Bush gave to the over $250, 000 tax payers. Why do you seem so adamant about pronouncing cuts to the poor, elderly, and sick but say nothing about corporate welfare and the rich being more of a Good Samaritan?

You seem to like to quote your belief in “…a constitutionally limited Government” but what about what your belief in Christian teachings? Do they matter more than your political beliefs? Christ told us a thing or two about our actions involving the poor, the sick, and the hungry, in Matthew 25 (see below)



Matthew 25
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Zongerfield
Why are you so bold about your interpretation of the constitution and politics but you do not mention what Christ’s teachings are about the poor, sick, the hungry, etc?

Interesting:
Notice how both Clirus and Zongerfield say they don't believe in evolution because it's immoral (and atheistic, according to Clirus). Notice also how both of them embrace a system of social darwinism, (Clirus outright, and Zongerfield not much better) and label it as good.

Can anyone say "Irony"? Reject the science, accept the (I dare say harmful) pseudoscience.

Indeed! Social Darwinism is a pseudo-science if ever there was one.

As a matter of fact, what we've gleaned from evolutionary biology about human behaviour runs CONTRARY to the tenets of Social Darwinism.
Compassion and empathy aren't weaknesses that slow us down, they actually contribute to our long-term survival.

The downfall of civilizations has always been heralded by a widening gap between the haves and the have-nots: as soon as the social cohesion of a society reaches a critical breaking point, things start to collapse in upon themselves.

Zongerfield said:

A wise and frugal Government, which shall retrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
-Thomas Jefferson

Click to expand...

Do you happen to have the exact source of that quote? Whether it was in a letter or in another document, I’d like to read it in full to get the full context.

Taxation is not "taking from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned," especially not taxation of the rich. Thomas Jefferson favored a progressive tax, that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate than the lower classes. What he is talking about here is taxing the poor and lowly businessman who is working to improve his business.

Here’s a Jefferson quote, sourced, so that you can look up the letter and get the full context:

"The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 28,1785

Clearly, Jefferson favored taxing the rich, not the poor or middle class.

Conditions, of course, were not the same back then… inequalities are now worse than the inequalities Jefferson deplored. There was no such thing as huge corporations making billions of dollars for its CEOs and CFOs and investors while crushing lesser businesses and reaping huge profits while overworking employees and laying them off to get cheap labor overseas.

Business regulations that enforce safe work conditions, limit harshness, prevent discrimination and require employers to provide living wage are examples of "restraining men from injuring one another."

Jefferson was also a champion of public education, universal and compulsory, and he devoted the end of his life in creating the University of Virginia because he thought that education was so important.

Charlie

Zongerfield said:

That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. While they debated the size of the military, no where did they seriously consider a standing army of 50 men. NO WAY. The founding fathers were keenly aware of the danger that existed outside the union (remember when Jefferson favored sending resources to aid France in its revolution?) which is why the Constitution clearly grants the government the right to fund and army and provide and maintain a Navy.

Click to expand...

“Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people’s] freedom and subversive of their quiet.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Reply to Lord North’s Proposition (1775)

“The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”
~Thomas Jefferson Letter to Thomas Cooper (1814).


“Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.” ~Thomas Jefferson Letter to Samuel Adams (1800)

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. James Madison,[/FONT] Speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 29, 1787

Regarding Washington, I had my numbers wrong but my theory right. His original request was an army of 700 men. Congress rejected his request, and the vast majority opposed any standing armies, as the quotes above attest regarding Jefferson and Madison. Theirs was the majority opinion among founding fathers. A very small standing army, or no standing army at all. This is what the founding fathers wanted.

In fact, their experience previously had been with Kings who used armies and taxation to gain greater riches for themselves and crush the masses. The founding fathers favored freedom in that they opposed such actions. They never opposed governments taxing the rich to help the people and build up the nation, which is precisely the sort of thing you are opposing.

Currently, the rich pay less taxes than they paid for nearly 100 years... and a much lesser percentage of their income in taxes than the middle and lower classes, though they will deceitfully claim otherwise by such means as not counting payroll tax as a tax and not counting capital gains income as income. We currently have a regressive, not a progressive, tax system, where rich corporations dodge taxes and often receive subsidies and bailouts while many people cannot eat, and our infrastructure is crumbling and our debt is increasing while people are becoming destitute as a result of our regressive tax system.

The 400 richest Americans have more wealth than 60% of all Americans combined. It is absurd to suggest that this is because the 400 richest Americans broke their backs and worked their fingers to the bone, doing more work than 60% of all Americans combined. They got their ill-gotten gains on the backs of hard working Americans, who they then left to die, like my father.

Charlie

The US military budget is freakishly insane, given that your administration can barely finance itself, your national debt is collossal, and a significant percentage of your populace has VERY limited access to educational institutions, medical services or even proper food and housing.

Zongerfield said:

Caring for these people shouldn't be compulsory, government mandated.

Click to expand...

Isn't everything a government does, or is supposed to do, in one way or another, related to caring?

"Our bridges our crumbling! The dam over our town is about to erupt!"
"We don't care!"
"I just found out, my job has been using these chemicals they said were safe, and now, half my coworkers have cancer... and I just found a lump."
"We don't care!"
"I worked my whole life, and suddenly, at 55, I got laid off! I sent out 400 resumes, and not one call. Not one. I don't have enough food in the house, and I have no money left. I have a 8 year old, and she's crying, she's hungry... worse, I just got a foreclosure notice, and I think my cough is turning into pneumonia!"
"We don't care!"
"There are soldiers in boats invading the shores!"
"We don't care!"
"Help, 911! My house is on fire!"
"We don't care!"
"Someone just broke into my house! Please, we need police!"
"We don't care!"
"I'm having a heart attack!"
"We don't care!"

"Hi, I'm Joe Candidate, and I'm running for Senate. And I want you all to know.. I don't care! So please, vote for the guy who doesn't care! Why should I care? Big oil funded my campaign, and they just reaped billions of dollars in extra profits by raising your prices at the pumps! And guess what folks... they paid not one dime in taxes last year! Not one dime! I don't care about that either! Next week, they want us to subsidize their drilling in the Gulf, right near where those folks all lost their businesses in the oil spill... but I'm proud to announce, as long as those oil companies keep funding my campaigns and the gullible folks reading Ayn Rand, drinking tea and supporting my candidacy even while they lose their livelihoods too and blame other poor people for their troubles... I don't care! I'm Joe Candidate, and I approve this message!"

Stop.

Founding Fathers. Let's go back to the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution, for the United States of America.

What is the purpose of a government?

* more perfect union
* justice
* domestic tranquilty
* common defense
* general welfare
* blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity.

While there are people starving, homeless, hard-working people thrown out of jobs and evicted from their homes because of the greed of big business, people being overworked and underpaid and uncompensated for their labor, as long as these people exist--as they do exist, increasingly so in the last several decades--none of the things on the above list is being accomplished by our government. Not one.

It's a governments job to care. If the government does not care, we should not vote for them.

Compulsory caring on the part of the government? You betcha. If the government doesn't care about the people who elected them, then we will vote them out... and those who have been favoring the billionaires and the corporations that have been tearing down our nation, corporations paying not one dime in tax although they reap billions in profits and actually getting subsidies and bailouts, even as the hard-working people, and that's most of us, and the disabled and ill and elderly, are losing their homes and lives to corporate greed, deserve to be voted out.

Increases in poverty = increases in crime = decrease in domestic tranquility. Imperfect union. Injustice.

What happens when a government doesn't care? Revolution. Remember a Queen who once said, "Let them eat cake!"

Charlie

Zongerfield said:

Stealing from the rich to feed the poor creates laziness and dependency on government entitlements. The correct equation reads: stealing money from the producers = weaker economy = less jobs = increased government dependency = increased slothfulness = indolence and general unrest = "we need more socialism" = no more private property = we're all part of a collective that knows better than we do what's best = 1984 = godlessness.

Click to expand...

The silly thing is that you equate the "rich" with the "producers". I'll just glaze over the rest of your extremely inflammatory and arrogant post.

Zongerfield said:

(God for give me for my ire and wrath toward these people, ie liberal wastrels).

Click to expand...

You can't even spell "forgive" correctly in reference to yourself. Freudian slip?

Clearly we should eat the poor.

Quote of Zongerfield

But we don't give money, resources or time to those who believe they've "earned" something just by living in this country.

I don't hate a lot of things, but I hate the entitlement mentality that plagues this nation.

(God for give me for my ire and wrath toward these people, ie liberal wastrels).

Click to expand...

Zongerfield, you have been posting about people that receive Medicare, Medicaid, and social security. You classify these people as liberal wastrels who believe that they have “earned” something just by living in this country?
Why did you change your wording about the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security people? Are you trying ot hide your true feelings?


Do you think that I did not notice that you dodged the questions that I ask you on post # 534. You have done this more than once and that makes me think that you do not want to answer questions that bring out the truth about your attitude. However I do not want you to be so down on yourself so I WILL FORGIVE YOU! Now do you feel better?


Just in case you want to answer the questions I have reprinted them below

Why do you seem so adamant about pronouncing cuts to the poor, elderly, and sick but say nothing about corporate welfare and the rich being more of a Good Samaritan?


Zongerfield
Why are you so bold about your interpretation of the constitution and politics but you do not mention what Christ’s teachings are about the poor, sick, the hungry, etc?

Click to expand...

Ref post 534

Zongerfield said:

There's an old Chinese proverb, "prosperity never lasts more than three generations..." This is true. Those who have the money, earned it. Very view who have inherited it, kept their fortunes with idle hands.

Click to expand...

At least not in China -- hence the proverb.

Just in case you want to answer the questions I have reprinted them below
Ref post 534

NOTE: Zongerfield did not even post the reprinted questions


Reply by Zongerfield
I thought I sufficiently answered your questions. I favor entitlement cuts because they were not originally outlined in our Constitution. Where is Obamacare listed?

I don't feel that we should be forced to pay for others, liberal wastrels. I help people, I've already told you about Walt - which should speak volumes of my compassion to help and heal others with serious afflictions, not because I have to or because the government makes me, but because that's what Christ wants.

Click to expand...

Zongerfield, I will get my understanding of what Christ wants from Christ's words not your political agenda!

You did not answer my question you just reinforced my question by showing that you try to justify your attitude towards the poor with your political agenda. You are putting your hatred for the poor and clothing it with your interpretation of the Constitution above what Jesus said in Matthew 25.
I posted Matthew 25 for you for you in my earlier post but I am not going to post this time as you have proved what you value most. You value your political ideas above scripture so why post scripture?

Because there are some people that take advantage of the social programs you want to punish all of them, the sick, the poor, and the elderly. It goes with what you and Clirus have been posting. You are more interested in pointing out the failures of mankind and cutting them off than you are the teachings of Jesus.

No one is saying that we are to encourage those that are deliberately trying to take advantage of the social programs; almost everyone wants to cut those cheaters off. You want to cut off ALL the social security people, all the sick that have Medicare and medicade, and food stamps for the poor. You know and we all know that all those millions of people are not cheaters. Besides those people have paid into Social Security and Medicare for most of their life, why should you cheat them out of their benefits?

It is very obvious that you answered my questions with answers that did not address my questions. In fact you did not even post the questions when you replied because it shows what you really think.

I am glad that you have very little to no influence or respect on this forum. You can read the hundreds of posts to you from Christians and non-Christians and no one supports you except Clirus. That really tells the true story!