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

[sdmsanjose]

[QUOTE]
Reply by Zongerfield
Really? Where in scripture does it say that a society should have a system of government that mandates entitlement programs?
[/QUOTE]
SDM responds
You endorse the government giving some of your tax money to corporate welfare

You DO NOT endorse that your government gives some of your tax money to the sick (Medicare) the hungry (food stamps).

The scriptures do not talk about corporate welfare but the scriptures do talk about the sick and the hungry.

If you are a Christian like you say you are then you know that the scriptures have more authority than you or I. Your ideas about what government should do in this area means nothing. Read Matthew 25 and Luke 10 with an open mind and you will have scriptures to argue with. I am reprinting just a part of Matthew 25 in case you take the scriptures seriously


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.



Zongerfield, you should make up your mind if you are going to deal with the poor, the sick, and the hungry if you are going to follow your own political agenda or the scriptures.

 

[walkingxshadow]

way too much off topic flaming. i unsubscribed.

 

[Skavau]

Wow, you have an interesting taste in music.

So much for the top 10 nations contributing nothing to humanity, eh?

Not mentioning the fact that if you bothered to look, you would find many companies, organizations, media and the arts do disproportionately come from those nations.

I really believe that anyone who says the U.S. wouldn't be their first choice is outright lying. With few exceptions.

So am I an exception or a liar?

 

[sdmsanjose]

sdmsanjose quote
The giving to the sick and hungry are specifically taught by Christ in Matthew 25 and Luke 10.

Clirus Response
I am not sure what verses you are referring to in Matthew and Luke, but the entire New Testament deals with brothers in Christ, thus Christian charity means giving to the sick and hungry that are fellow Christians.

Come on Clirus, do not try to play dumb, like you do not know which scriptures I am referring to. You know exactly which scriptures I am talking about. In fact you have had these scriptures posted as a reply to your anti Medicare and social security posts in the past and you did respond. You do not want to discuss Matthew 25 verses 34-46 and Luke 10 verses 25-37 because they contradict your own ideas about Christian charity

Quote of Clirus
“thus Christian charity means giving to the sick and hungry that are fellow Christians.”

You make statement on your own and do not post scriptures, just your own thoughts. Your own ideas mean nothing if they are not backed up by scripture.

The scripture (Luke 10-27) proves your statement wrong and it says:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The neighbor does not refer to” fellow Christians” but to fellow man or creature.

If you are going to respond to me about a Christian issue then post a Biblical reference so that I can see if it has any credibility. I am not interested in you presenting your own ideas about the Christian bible without posting any scriptures to substantiate your personal thoughts and beliefs. In short, your beliefs mean nothing unless they have some biblical support.

 

[Zongerfield]

He explored it. No money for lawyers, and the lawyer he spoke to said he didn't have a chance.

BTW, most people on the right want to limit people's right to lawsuits, and hate lawyers generally. Do you think we should limit people's right to sue?

There's more than one lawyer out there. Most lawyers work for 1/3 of the settlement in lawsuit cases. Unless you decide to keep on on retainer.

I don't know the particulars of your father's case, but for most inventions, as well as most great ideas in science, there's usually more than one individual who has that idea or who is working on a particular invention at any given time. So, he might not have a case because it was a logical step that many others were pursuing or had pursued etc...

Think about Darwin and Wallace, Edison and Tesla, Watson and Crick, etc.

Also, I do favor a limit on lawsuits. That's one of the only things I favored in the health care reform debates.

I think if you can't see that corporations are actively seeking to "exploit" people you're blind. Or inexperienced. Or wearing rose colored glasses.

Mama don't take my kodachrome away.

However, if that's your position, I suggest not talking to me. Because according to you, I am crazy, and it's rather useless from your perspective to talk to a crazy person. If corporations exploiting people makes me crazy, then call me Napoleon and get me a straight jacket. I'm there.

(I could also point out that, "crazy" is an ad hominem argument, and that you are not qualified to diagnose my mental condition, nor is "crazy" a valid diagnosis. But you could just dismiss what I'm pointing out as crazy.)

Not that I'd never use "crazy," but I generally reserve words like that for people, say, for example, who want to kill other people merely for disagreeing with them politically or religiously. People like Timothy McVeigh, various world terrorists, and others...

Charlie

Spare me the rhetoric. You know it was not to be taken literally. I know you're not crazy, you're a Christian brother. I do conceive it is a logical fallacy, but at the same time, you know it's meant more as a figure of speech as opposed to a literal charge against your sanity. Then again, maybe you don't know that. In which case, I forgive you, and I will continue to pray for you.

 

[TheReasoner]

We have a great legal system in this country, your father should have filed a lawsuit like that guy in the movie about the windshield wiper blades.

Also, if you believe corporations are actively seeking to "exploit" people you're crazy.

You should read case studies on business like Zappos, Google, Amazon, and others who care for and create a wonderful working environment with competitive salaries and benefits.

That old "exploit the worker" paradigm has shifted.




Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I started working at the age of 14 by my own volition, it taught me responsibility, the value of money, and the meaning of hard work. Sure, those sweat shops in India are troubling, but not since the early 1900s has their been child labor in this country.

Regulations strangle business, especially environmental regulations. We've been given dominion over this world, it is ours to use. Of course, we should be good stewards, but not at the cost of business and commerce.

Hm. I suggest you get outside your borders then. Your 'wonderful corporations' aren't so wonderful once you start looking, Zongerfield. I used to think as you do, when I was twelve. That's when we moved to Ecuador and I was shown how the machinery behind our consumption works.
You think it's all nice and wonderful? Try life as a worker for one of our big corporation abroad Z. You'll have no rights, they'll try to get you into debt to them, often resort to giving you drugs or alcohol to get you hooked on that. And those who do have the brains and guts to speak up risk shattered kneecaps or outright disappearance.

Wow, you have an interesting taste in music.

I've spent time in Canada. Aside from Tim Hortens, Ketchup Chips, and Hockey, there's not a whole lot going on. Which is why every Canadian celebrity, artist, etc. moves to the United States.

I really believe that anyone who says the U.S. wouldn't be their first choice is outright lying. With few exceptions.

The U.S. is the greatest country on God's green earth. (despite what arbitrary polls and liberal generated studies suggest).

Ungh. To even say such a thing Zongerfield... What do you worship Zongerfield? A nation or Christ?

If the US was so great why isn't this echoed by the statistics? It's not like these are asking random people on the streets you know.
Also, are you REALLY claiming that 'liberal' is an affix which disproves a statement?

If you think the US is best, supply the data Z. Either that or have the integrity to shut up. Can you really not see what this extreme nationalistic pride is seen as?

Goodness, your insistence that the US is a place where everyone wants to live and that it's the greatest country on the planet despite all evidence to the contrary sounds an awful lot like idolatry Zongerfield. You claim the US is the greatest nation on the world. I just showed you some stats that prove it wrong on many points. Yet that's somehow just 'biased liberal research'. A lot of what I posted can be inferred from data from the CIA, Zongerfield. Liberal? Yeah right.

We can look at press freedom. Freedom of speech. Gender equality. You'll loose every time.
So let's look at your baby the healthcare system. You spend more than any other nation and yet you have fewer hospital beds, fewer doctors, fewer nurses and lower life expectancy than most of the west.
How about median salary? Nope.
Personal rights? Sorry.
Financial stability? Absolutely not.
Perhaps it's the biggest nation? Nope.

Granted, the US is topping a few statistics. Porn production, for example. The US not only tops video porn production, but it also tops website production - 89%(!!) of porn websites are from the US. And of course no-one else has more firepower per capita either.

So what on earth is it you're best AT Zongerfield? Claiming to be best?

Rotting from within: Conservatism and Christianity, part 1 « Call for Thought
Ideological Incompatibility- Conservatism and Christianity, part 2 « Call for Thought

I think you just inspired part 3, Zongerfield. I think I'll call it "Nantionalism, elitism, neglect and empty pride: Conservatism and Christianity, part 3."

 

[TheReasoner]

sdmsanjose quote

The neighbor does not refer to" fellow Christians" but to fellow man or creature.

If you are going to respond to me about a Christian issue then post a Biblical reference so that I can see if it has any credibility. I am not interested in you presenting your own ideas about the Christian bible without posting any scriptures to substantiate your personal thoughts and beliefs. In short, your beliefs mean nothing unless they have some biblical support.

Response

A fellow man or creature could be either a Christian or an Atheists, but the Bible says that Christians do not have fellowship with unbelievers (Atheists).

II Corinthians 6:14 states, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with the unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

So... What do you make of Jesus going to parties with sinners then Clirus? And what do you make of Him healing and helping people who had not yet repented?
Could it be you've misinterpreted?


Besides, the bible also tells us to go out and make all peoples His disciples. To do that we MUST be around unbelievers Clirus. And none of the apostles had any problem with it either. Remember when they healed the lame beggar by the temple Clirus? They didn't ask for repentance, they just said they didn't have any money, but that they'd give what they had, and healed the man. None of your conditions applied.

 

[TheReasoner]

Nathan Poe quote

Exactly -- they're going to starve to death if you don't give them a fish. Once they're fed, then you teach them to fish for themselves.

Response

The best way to avoid giving a person a fish is to tell them they are not going to get fish given to them, so they has better prepare to learn how to fish.

Prevention of evil is far better than the cure of the results of evil.

The Bible advocates prevention by listing those things to avoid.

Sometimes ignorance has to pay the ultimate price of starvation. At least they served as a bad example.

He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 22:16)

Matthew 25:
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[TheReasoner]

It is good to be among sinners to teach them and offer salvation, but nothing more.

Matthew 28:19-20 states, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."

I believe all that Jesus healed or helped, showed faith by some action, before they were healed or helped.

I believe that the healing that Jesus did was to prove that He was the Son of God.

Some believe Jesus was sent by God to heal and help the poor, but I believe Jesus was sent by God to be the perfect lamb that paid the sin debt. There could be no salvation without the sin debt being paid and a person accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

He could have given help only to the faithful, like you suggest. Instead He said: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." (
excerpted from Matthew 9:12)
And what's more Clirus, His disciples offered and gave help even to those who were not believers.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

There's more than one lawyer out there. Most lawyers work for 1/3 of the settlement in lawsuit cases. Unless you decide to keep on on retainer.

I don't know the particulars of your father's case, but for most inventions, as well as most great ideas in science, there's usually more than one individual who has that idea or who is working on a particular invention at any given time. So, he might not have a case because it was a logical step that many others were pursuing or had pursued etc...

Think about Darwin and Wallace, Edison and Tesla, Watson and Crick, etc.

I worked a medical device company for a couple years. When you get the job they make it very clear that anything you invent while you are there belongs to the company, not you.

And I don't see the point in resisting Charlie V's tragic story. It kind of makes you look like a bit harsh to tell the guy that his father simply wasn't smart enough to get what he deserved. But I know that's what you believe - you blame the person, and not oppressive institution, for anything bad that happens to the person.

But I forgive you.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Any serious consideration of the case Charlie V presented would force Zongerfield to examine his own POV critically - and he cannot do that. The thing about blunt nationalism is that it relies on emotions: "Our glorious nation, best country in the world" and all that. In order to stick to such sentiments, you need to avoid any cognitive dissonance.

But do not fear, Zongerfield: I forgive you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Regulations strangle business, especially environmental regulations. We've been given dominion over this world, it is ours to use. Of course, we should be good stewards, but not at the cost of business and commerce.

So what? The bottom line isn't always profit. And if preserving something for our posterity comes at a cost to big business then I say, quite bluntly, 'Deal with it. It's not all about you and it's not all about money.'

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Clirus, you dodged my question yet again:

Post #643: You never answered my question, from a while back, about what you would do if an Atheist were in a burning house and you, and only you, could save them. Since you believe that feeding sick and hungry Atheists is evil, then what do you believe about saving his life?​

 

[Charlie V]

And I don't see the point in resisting Charlie V's tragic story. It kind of makes you look like a bit harsh to tell the guy that his father simply wasn't smart enough to get what he deserved. But I know that's what you believe - you blame the person, and not oppressive institution, for anything bad that happens to the person.

But I forgive you.

Thanks.

That seems to be the attitude. Blame the victim. Never blame the corporation who actually committed crimes against humanity, as corporations do in the name of profit all the time.

He uses "victim mentality" as his excuse to deny the self-evident truth: victims and victimization exists.
And that victimization must be opposed.

It's really the only Christian thing to do... and the only humane thing for anyone of any religion or none to do.

Charlie

 

[TheReasoner]

That seems to be the attitude. Blame the victim. Never blame the corporation who actually committed crimes against humanity, as corporations do in the name of profit all the time.

Oh yeah. I really wish you were wrong Charlie. I wish I could say "Charlie, you're wrong! The corporations are really humanitarian and work with everyone's best interests at heart". But, we both know you're right.
And we probably both wish you weren't.

He uses "victim mentality" as his excuse to deny the self-evident truth: victims and victimization exists.
And that victimization must be opposed.

It's really the only Christian thing to do... and the only humane thing for anyone of any religion or none to do.

Charlie

Aye. That it is

 

[Zongerfield]

There is a requirement in the Bible for Christian Charity among Christians, but there is no requirement for charity run by the government. Christians believe in Christian Charity, Socialists believe in government charity, but government charity serves both Christians and Atheists, thus Christians should be opposed to government charity.

In a good government, there would be neither corporate charity not Socialism (health care/welfare/entitlement programs).

America stayed away from Socialism until it was introduced by Roosevelt. The democrats saw health care/welfare/entitlement programs were a great way to buy votes, so they expanded Socialism into a massive system that is an excessive burden on America.

America needs to phase out all health care/welfare/entitlement programs and return to the Christian Lifestyle.

Socialism is giving a person a fish, Christianity is teaching a person how to fish.

Wow, this is perfectly stated. Thank you Clirus.

 

[Zongerfield]

I worked a medical device company for a couple years. When you get the job they make it very clear that anything you invent while you are there belongs to the company, not you.

And I don't see the point in resisting Charlie V's tragic story. It kind of makes you look like a bit harsh to tell the guy that his father simply wasn't smart enough to get what he deserved. But I know that's what you believe - you blame the person, and not oppressive institution, for anything bad that happens to the person.

But I forgive you.

RE: the bold. Yes, then you have no right to claim it as yours when you signed a contract that says your intellectual property, contributions, inventions, belongs to them.... If you don't like the deal, don't sign the contract.

Some of my friends are computer programmers, they have to sign similar agreements saying any proprietary code they devise while working on a project belongs to the company and not the programmer. This is a common business practice.

 

[TheReasoner]

You know, I'm beginning to think C and Z are the same person.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wow, this is perfectly stated. Thank you Clirus.

it is a perfect example of tribal thinking, isn't it? Christians help other Christians, and leave anyone outside the group to rot.

of course, in clirus' mind, anyone who needs help must've been doing something unChristian in the first place, and is thus ineligible.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote of Clirus
“thus Christian charity means giving to the sick and hungry that are fellow Christians.”

The scripture (Luke 10-27) proves your statement above wrong and it says:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The neighbor does not refer to” fellow Christians” but to fellow man or creature.

​

sdmsanjose quote
The neighbor does not refer to" fellow Christians" but to fellow man or creature.

Clirus Response
A fellow man or creature could be either a Christian or an Atheists, but the Bible says that Christians do not have fellowship with unbelievers (Atheists).

Clirus, the crux of our different positions lay with the true biblical definition of the word NIEGHBOR that was quoted by Christ in Luke 10.

Luke 10-27
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

What is the BIBLICAL definition of Neighbor? Listed below is the Greek definition that was used in the Luke scripture of the word Neighbor.

Neighbor in the new Testament Greek is “Plesion “
“it means neighbor, fellow man, or fellow creature…..the parable of the Good Samaritan, which teaches that that he who is outwardly near us should be the object of our concern in spite of the fact that there are no ties of kindred or nation between us”

Yes Clirus is wrong but even with credible information, like above, Clirus will spin her interpretation so that she can think that she is right.
This post is mostly for those that think that Clirus may have a point. She does not and will even try to spin the actual word of God in order to promote her own ideas. I no longer think that Clirus is open to sincere examination of the Bible so this is for those that have a open mind.