Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

Yeah, refusing to answer a question you can't answer is one way to obliterate someone I suppose.

 

You are asking good questions here. The worldview that makes the most sense of your question is the Christian worldview. People are made in the image of God, and chickens are not made in the image of God. That is why it is OK to eat chicken, but it is not OK to eat human. Pose that question to someone who holds a Darwinian worldview and you'll be hard-pressed to get a good answer other than we evolved morals. And to that they cannot give a response as to why it would be wrong to evolve a different set of morals that contradict the ones they hold now. And that brings into question how they can morally condemn psychopaths that do horrible horrible things.

And FWIW there are Christians who acknowledge the Bible in totality. I do. The God of the Old Testament is in every way the God of the New Testament.

 

My take on your question...Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, prescribed a governmental structure. I think that was on purpose. You see if you have a king, then the king must rule justly. If you have an oligarchy, then the oligarchy must rule righteously. If you have a republic, then the republic must rule righteously. If you have a democracy, then the democracy must rule righteously. Whoever has the power they must rule in a way that pleases God.

Whoever has the power they will be judged for how they rule. That is even true of constitutional republics and representative democracies.

 

Jesus did acknowledge the authority of the state in certain things. The power to tax belongs to Caesar. Read Psalm 2, though. In the book of Acts the apostles apply that passage to Jesus. Jesus is the Son in that passage, and the kings of the earth are instructed to kiss the Son lest they perish. And a solemn warning is given to the kings of the earth to beware of the Son's wrath because it can be kindled quickly.

Now we don't have kings anymore, but the king and the rulers are the ones with the political power. And it applies to everyone with political power: kiss the Son lest you perish. His wrath can be kindled quickly. So, those with political power will answer to God for things they have done with their political power. And when they rage against God, and they plot against Him they bring about their own future judgment.

That is what the Bible teaches.

 

Yeah I've always thought that any god who created this reality we live in is a sadistic psychopath. Animals have to eat each other just to survive. That is sick. What kind of psycho would create such a system?

 

You have ruined a thread on a draft legal opinion with your continuous posting of your religious views. Why don’t you start your own thread so anyone who wants to address them can do so while the rest of us discuss the topic.

 

Let the record stand that post #1195 was my first post in the thread. It was very much an on-point post about the topic at hand. I was not the one to bring religion into the thread. That happened in post #1196 and #1206. And now that I have sufficiently defended myself from y'alls mockery, derision, and accusations now you want whine and cry about me injecting religion into the thread. You guys started this, not me.

 

Always reminds me of this...

 

But do you like being eaten?

 

Wait, didn't you just call taxation "[t]he state forcibly extracting your neighbor's wealth under the threat of force"? So if Jesus approves of the state having the power of taxation and the Bible teaches that we have a responsibility to care for and help our neighbors, why are you disapproving of using taxes for that purpose?

 

Well, to each their own. If I were in charge, I would not set up a system where animals have to prey on each other in order to survive. And I wouldn't make serial killers. And I wouldn't make people hate other people so much that they walk into grocery stores and gun them down. There's a lot of things I would do differently if I were god.

 

Yes, that is what taxation is, and I still stick by that definition. I described it in those terms because people often quote the passages about giving to the poor, thinking this somehow provides the pretext for a welfare state.

Here is the question: If the state takes your money, and then the state gives that money to the poor then have you obeyed Christ's command to help the poor by simply paying your taxes to the welfare state? I say no. I don't think Christ will count that as obedience. The argument by those on the left is they are helping the poor by voting Democrat and paying their taxes to the welfare state, but Christ did not say to vote for a set of government policies and let the government take care of the poor.

Christ said to help the poor. So, who will be found obedient to Christ? The one who payed his taxes to the welfare state, thinking this fulfills his obligation to the poor? Or is it the one who paid his taxes to the welfare state, but personally from his own bank account and assets helped the poor?

I think it is the latter man who will be found obedient to Christ, and that is because Jesus said Caesar is only taking what belongs to Caesar. It is what a man does with what Caesar does not take that determines if he has obeyed Jesus' command to help the poor.

If you understand that argument, then you should understand why from my vantage point that the welfare state has nothing to do with fulfilling the commands of Jesus to help the poor. Additionally, nowhere does the Bible prescribe a welfare state. But it does say we have a personal obligation to help the poor. That is what the Bible clearly says.

 

I can't even begin to make sense of this. You oppose the government following Jesus's teachings when it comes to helping the poor among us because some individuals may choose not to help the poor as a result?

 

Well, you have to think about the audience. Who was Jesus telling to help the poor? It was Jesus' disciples this was said to. Jesus never said those words to the government (Herod, Pontius Pilate, etc).

 

So you think Jesus wouldn't have wanted Herod, Pontius Pilate, or Caesar to help the poor? "Help the poor, my followers, but don't do it in the most effective ways. Because this is about making yourselves look good, not actually helping the poor."

 

I don't think the commandment was about looking good. And I don't think it was about effectiveness or efficiency. I think the commandment was about love. A society of loving people will take care of the poor better than the government ever could.

I do disagree with your premise, though. People help people better than the government does. When a person helps a person they can see the person has a body, a soul, and a spirit. They can see the person's needs. They can be a friend. They can be a minister. They can be an evangelist.

When the government creates a program to help a person the person is just a number. The government can't see if they are hurting the person by enabling bad behavior. The government can't befriend a person. The government can't share the gospel. Then add in the corruption of government and politicians and you have a very inefficient way of helping the poor.

 

This doesn't make any real sense. The government is of and for the people. It exists to represent the interests of its people. If we have a society of loving people dedicated to taking care of the poor, its government will do that well. That's because a government can accrue resources and distribute them in a way that individuals cannot.

The reality is even if the government is helping the poor, it doesn't prevent individuals from also doing that. The only thing that really made sense to me in your post was the point about the government not being able to "share the gospel." But the notion that taking care of the poor should be contingent on them having to hear the gospel strikes me as quite ugly.

In any case, I don't see this going anywhere productive, so I'm going to duck out at this point. Have a nice night.

 

Add Pennsylvania to the safe states for women.

 

Like both her shirt and sign.