Libertarianism and

[Scarletprayers]

Why do people see it as "Church vs. State" in the instance of helping people? Why can it not be both? If the poor will always be with us (meaning we cannot rid ourselves of poverty) then why can't the government help out? In other words, even if every Christian were living up to their purpose in helping the poor, this would still not eradicate the problem, so why could the government not help out (as it is called to do)?

Also, to say that the income tax was a 'temporary solution' is absurd. You don't add things to the Constitution if they are supposedly "temporary." To say it is unconstitutional shows that you haven't read past the bill of rights. An amendment was added that makes the income tax constitutional. As for a flat tax, it has been said that those who know nothing of logic or are very rich to begin with support a flat tax. Suppose the tax rate was established at just 15%. I would end up bringing in about 1,020 to bring home each month. My friend, who makes more than me (but is the same age), would end up bringing home $4,250. The problem with this is that though he is paying "more" taxes (in value) I am paying a greater percentage of my paycheck. Granted, no matter what it's still 15%, but at the same time I lose more by having to pay it. In other words, a flat tax would only force those that are poor to remain poor. When income tax is considered, a graduated tax system is the fairest way to go about it. Otherwise, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer which eventually destroys a Capitalistic system. If an income tax must exist within Capitalism, the only fair income tax that a Capitalist can support is a graduated tax. After all, the more money the poor have, the more they will spend which helps the Capitalists.

I don't mind my taxes going to help the needy, and on top of that I give to the charities and organizations of my own choosing. I have trouble with the billions of dollars going to countries that hate us, take our money and spit on us as people every chance they get. Besides, if we as a nation can afford to give money to others, why do we have people living is sub-standard housing, the old and young and in between doing without medical care/Rx's they need. We need to take care of our own first. Not one American should have to go to bed hungry, or without the help they need. Our Veterans shouldn't have to wait months and years to get the medical attention they need, they more than paid their dues. I do mind a system that is so flawed that people trying to work themselves out of the welfare system are penalized. Where those needing help and receiving a pittance from the government walk a razors edge trying to move up without getting thrown out.

I'm not going to get into the debate about the different type of social/political structure needed to support a fair society, AK, Butero, horizonseast and Marnie all seem to have valid points for and against the side they are standing on. Like with anything you can't please all of the people all of the time.

[apothanein kerdos]

No Isaiah chapter 32 does not say that the future kingdom has government assistance for the poor. The only verse that even mentions the king at all is the first one, which says, "BEHOLD, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgement." How you can get from that verse the government is required to aid the poor is beyond me? It seems it is you that lacks reading comprehension. The only way one can stretch that to mean as you say is to claim that a reign in righteousness and ruling in judgement means government welfare programs, and it says no such thing. All other verses following describe how things will be, and are speaking of individuals, not the government.

Again, quoting what I said:

As for what you said, you missed the analysis I gave. Isaiah 32 states that a righteous ruler will help the poor. In fact, all of Isaiah refers to how the comming Messiah will establish His kingdom and the poor will be sheltered. We, as CHristians, are to live as if though Christ has brought His kingdom in full (the moden prayers states for His will to be done on earth). If that is the case, we want to see EVERYTHING changed for God, that includes the government. We should support programs that help the poor.

I acknowledged this passage was refering to the reign of Christ (not the millenial, but the actual reign of Christ). In it the poor are given help and justice. As Christians, we are to live as if though His kingdom has come. If this is the case, we want to see governments represent Him in every way possible (they are, after all, a part of our culture). Thus, as Christians, we should support government programs that fairly help the poor get out of their poverty status and don't just throw money at the problem.

That is very easy to understand. If you can't get it or understand what I am saying, then you probably shouldn't be posting.

[apothanein kerdos]

Why do people see it as "Church vs. State" in the instance of helping people? Why can it not be both? If the poor will always be with us (meaning we cannot rid ourselves of poverty) then why can't the government help out? In other words, even if every Christian were living up to their purpose in helping the poor, this would still not eradicate the problem, so why could the government not help out (as it is called to do)?

Also, to say that the income tax was a 'temporary solution' is absurd. You don't add things to the Constitution if they are supposedly "temporary." To say it is unconstitutional shows that you haven't read past the bill of rights. An amendment was added that makes the income tax constitutional. As for a flat tax, it has been said that those who know nothing of logic or are very rich to begin with support a flat tax. Suppose the tax rate was established at just 15%. I would end up bringing in about 1,020 to bring home each month. My friend, who makes more than me (but is the same age), would end up bringing home $4,250. The problem with this is that though he is paying "more" taxes (in value) I am paying a greater percentage of my paycheck. Granted, no matter what it's still 15%, but at the same time I lose more by having to pay it. In other words, a flat tax would only force those that are poor to remain poor. When income tax is considered, a graduated tax system is the fairest way to go about it. Otherwise, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer which eventually destroys a Capitalistic system. If an income tax must exist within Capitalism, the only fair income tax that a Capitalist can support is a graduated tax. After all, the more money the poor have, the more they will spend which helps the Capitalists.

I don't mind my taxes going to help the needy, and on top of that I give to the charities and organizations of my own choosing. I have trouble with the billions of dollars going to countries that hate us, take our money and spit on us as people every chance they get. Besides, if we as a nation can afford to give money to others, why do we have people living is sub-standard housing, the old and young and in between doing without medical care/Rx's they need. We need to take care of our own first. Not one American should have to go to bed hungry, or without the help they need. Our Veterans shouldn't have to wait months and years to get the medical attention they need, they more than paid their dues. I do mind a system that is so flawed that people trying to work themselves out of the welfare system are penalized. Where those needing help and receiving a pittance from the government walk a razors edge trying to move up without getting thrown out.

I'm not going to get into the debate about the different type of social/political structure needed to support a fair society, AK, Butero, horizonseast and Marnie all seem to have valid points for and against the side they are standing on. Like with anything you can't please all of the people all of the time.

I tend to hold to this view. Our system is flawed but instead of trashing it, we simply need to revamp it. The thing is, the reason many democrats fight welfare reform is that, by keeping people on welfare, they (the democrats) get to stay in power. In other words....we need politicians that care more for the people they represent than the power they gain in the position.

[apothanein kerdos]

1 You said Isaiah 32 states that a righteous ruler will help the poor. I am saying that it does no such thing. Only the first verse mentions the ruler (king) at all, and the rest deal with future conditions during the millenial reign.

The "king" is obviously refering to the Messiah (Christ). In other words, under the Messiah, in His kingdom, the poor will be taken care of. This is a government institution. My argument is that because we are to live as if though His kingdom has come, we should welcome government aid to the poor so long as it truly helps them. This means the government establishing programs to help the poor get a real job or something along those lines.

3 You said we should live as though Christ's kingdom has already come. You further go on to say that means that the government is to help the poor, yet you have provided no credible scriptural arguments to back up those claims. None of the scriptures you gave conclusively prove it is the government's responsibility at all, but only show it is our responsibility as individuals.

I went through and showed proper analysis on each scripture. I gave a proper interpretation. You're blind and just don't want to acknowledge it. YOu cannot claim this until you go back and refute my analysis. Until then you're being unjust.

4 Indeed, this is very easy to understand. It is a debate over who is responsible to help the poor? The individual according as he or she is led by their conscience or the government.

Go back to school and take a class Bernie...this is absolutely pathetic. I am utterly sick and tired of debating you. Wanna know why? Let's look at some quotes from my previous posts:

Why do people see it as "Church vs. State" in the instance of helping people? Why can it not be both? If the poor will always be with us (meaning we cannot rid ourselves of poverty) then why can't the government help out? In other words, even if every Christian were living up to their purpose in helping the poor, this would still not eradicate the problem, so why could the government not help out (as it is called to do)?

I have made it utterly clear that I think both, both, both, both, BOTH church and State are to help the poor.

You have provided scripture you claim proves your point, and I have shown, and in some cases you have even admitted, these scriptures can just as well apply to individuals and not government.

Do you live in your own little world Bernie? Are you on drugs? Do you pay attention to anything going on? QUote me where I agreed with you. As it is, here is all I said concerning the scriptures I gave:

Judges interpreted the laws of the land (much as they are suppose to do today). They were a governing body, a part of the government. Often the judge WAS the king. In our society we have seperation of powers; back then "judge" and "king" most likely would have been the same thing. Either way, it refers to a governing body to defend and deliver the poor. It still responds to a form of aid. This means that debt collectors, imminent domain, taxation, or anything else that could potentially hurt the poor is to be dealt with by the governing authorities.

It is not refering solely to individuals. Regardless, the government is made up of individuals. In other words, if they do nothing to aid the poor, to help them out, they are reproaching them. For instance, if a rich man can use his position of authority to help the poor, why is a politician not allowed to? Furthermore, if you would use this money to help the poor, then why are you complaining when your tax money goes to what you would do anyway?

Apply above analysis. Individuals make up the government. Likewise, you're ignoring the spirit behind it. It shows the heart of God. 2,000 verses deal with poverty, and you're honestly suggesting He doesn't want the government to help them out? That's just absurd.

You ignore the fact that it's refering to a governing authority. Likewise, the Hebrew word is shaphat which means to govern or vindicate. This means that he is to govern over the poor in a fair manner. Under a Hebrew paradigm this means he is to help them in their plight. This is very explicit that the government is to help the poor in some fashion.

The fact is they mistreated the poor. Placing taxes on the poor when they can barely afford it, allowing them to continue in poverty, not helping them when they need it, etc are all stealing from the poor.

I provided the Hebrew analysis of the scriptures. I gave you the best interpretation you can find honestly. You can't skirt around it by just going, "Nope, doesn't work." If you're going to say that, then go through, counter the Hebrew interpretation I gave, and show me a different interpretation that works in the grammatical context it's built within. As for saying God doesn't want governments to take our money, reference back to Jesus and Paul both stating that we are to pay taxes to the government. If it was unjust, they certaintly would have said something.

No, I even showed that "Justice" in Hebrew means to "take care of" as well. In other words, when it says not to deny justice to the poor man, it is saying not to deny him aid in his time of need. The responsibility to take care of the poor falls on the government, individuals, and the church.

Now, with all of this you responed with amazing intelligence and proper biblical interpretation to provide an intellectual clash in which both parties learned absolutely nothing. Quote to me where I agreed with you.

Until you can counter all I've stated on these scriptures, you have proven nothing. Maybe in your little dream world that you seem to be debating from, but not in the real world.

All in all, I think both sides have laid out there cases. I doubt that either one of us will ever be won over to the other's way of thinking, but as I said earlier, I think the scriptures provided speak for themselves.

yeah, too bad you're deaf.

I somehow missed this post so I will repeat what I said in another. If a liberal were to challenge God for his throne he would say something like this:

"God is building his kingdom on the backs of the poor." He would then go on to suggest a graduated tithing scale. After all, it is unfair that rich and poor alike only pay 10 percent. It would go something like this:

0-20,000 Pay nothing

20,000 to 50,000 Pay 10 percent

50,000 to 100,000 Pay 50 Percent

100,000 and up Pay 90 Percent, their fair share. (After all, these are the winners in life's lottery.)

If God expects everyone to give 10 percent back to him, then a flat tax rate is perfectly fair and perfectly Biblical. In addition to tithes, we are also to give voluntary offerings of whatever amount we choose and give alms in amounts as we choose. There again I return to the same thing I said earlier, the government needs to get out of the Robin Hood mentality and we should be free to give to the poor as the Lord lays on our hearts, and to the charities we deem worthy of support.

The problem is that the tithe was something to be paid at the temple. This was to be paid at the temple to Jewish priests. We never see this occur in the New Testament. In fact, the one time we see two Jews observing the tithe, a woman is giving more than 10%. The 10% is arbitrary...we are to give to God whatever He lays on our heart to give...afterall, it all belongs to Him.

The point is, your argument is absurd. The Israeli government NEVER accepted a tithe, the tithe was to the Lord's. This does not support a "flat tax" system at all. Again, a flat tax would harm the poor, so why would God bless a system that harmed the ones He most often mentions we should protect?

And in the real world it was a disaster.

Where did I claim any different Horizon? Don't explain to me my "logic" but insted quote me directly where I said Marxism could work in the real world or was even good on paper. Quote me, I dare you. Fact is, you're a dishonest debator who misrepresents people's views to try and prove your point. I've seen you do it with Shiloh and Nik in former debates and with other people as well. It isn't right, and for a Christian to do it is just sickening because it's the equivalent to lying.

Listen, I know I'm comming across harsh, but as seen, no one is paying attention. They are comming in with pre-set views and I'm having to repeat my post, so much so I hav eto go back to former posts to prove my point. I'm getting sick and tired of it, and unless it changes, I'm done with this debate.

[ted]

In all of this, the US Government does support the poor with billions of dollars, right?

So, where is it going wrong?

Like anything else left in man's hands, it becomes abused. I think the idea of helping the poor is biblical, and indeed, to be excercised further. The main problems with the system is how it is abused from it's intent (both by the some in the Govt and by some recipients), and the very real possibility of the continued abuse leading to a slave state where people become too dependent on the system.

It's interesting to observe the history of the growing attachment to the welfare booty, but sad, as well. Like any other system where abusers can smell an easy dollar (such as the abuse of law suits), the welfare system implemented by the Govt has changed from it's original intent and grown into a monster which no longer can be contained in it's original cage.

Revamping would be nice, but at this point, will our leaders accept the change? How about those that receive the support?

I highly doubt it, and through it all, it just gets bigger.

The bigger it gets, the more we have to feed it.

The fact is, the welfare system in place today creates both a society which is growing ever more dependent on it, and leaders which now can use this fact to remain in power. All that is needed is a little bit of fear sprinkled around, and you have an instant mass of wiling recipients which no longer see a need to go out and find honest work.

This is a result of the abuse of the system, not a result of the intent of the system, or so I choose to believe.

To believe that it was created with these results in mind before hand would generate a little too much fear in my heart.

The trick now is, just what do we do to fix it?

Cutting off all aid is not the answer, because we are called to help the poor. Maybe we should take a good look at a couple of things.

1. Just what defines "the poor", anyway? Is one who is unwilling to work in the first place to be considered poor simply because he doesn't have money? Perhaps working on the persons desire to work in the first place could help. Unforeseen circumstances which drain a person's financial equity is certainly worthy of help, I guess. But, perhaps a set time/ dollar amount given to a person would give them the impression that the system is not meant as a life support system, but a system designed to help them in their time of need, with the understanding that they must also help themselves in areas such as drive and motivation and force them into self-sustainment.

I would pose that there are thousands upon thousands of folks which simply cannot support themselves, such as those with mental or severe physical handicaps. To these, we must understand that, as Christians, we have a responsibility to them as citizens.

2. Training.

Both mental and vocational training could be a boon to a society, as long as the recipient is willing to use the training to move forward. Perhaps one who didn't feel very worthy to the economic society would feel different given some training in which to work with. Perhaps money spent in this area would help things? Training someone to understand that people need to put forth an effort could help, as well.

As long as Government agencies charged with the distribution of free money to the citizens remain unconcerned with the amount of effort most put back into the system to get them to be self-reliant, we will be doomed to accept things the way they are.

Better oversight is needed to hold some feet to the fire.

Anyway, just a few random thoughts to plug in to the discussion.

I do think we are supposed to help the poor, both as individuals, and as governments. The trouble with the Government part, is that we have done it to such an extreme, that we now have so many problems with it, and people are tired of hearing about the abuses. We have created something to be laughed at through it's abuse, and now, we are left with a spoiled little red-headed stepchild that no one wants to deal with. We are past the point of ignoring it, so it's time to put it across our national knee and give it a good spanking, just like a bratty little kid sometimes reaches that point.

And, much like a bratty little kid, we certainly cannot kill it, either. The answer is to adjust it's attitude before it goes out and causes some real, unrepairable damage.

The trouble is, I'm only smart enough to see the problem, not fix it. So, I'll try to fix myself, instead.

Maybe, just maybe, if everyone (that can) fixes themselves as well, we might have a chance.

t.

t.

[apothanein kerdos]

In all of this, the US Government does support the poor with billions of dollars, right?

So, where is it going wrong?

t.

Yes and no. It does but it doesn't.

It gives money to the poor but unfortunately this tends to harm the poor more than helping them. It doesn't give them much help in way of getting a better job. Part of the reason my family has never accepted Welfare is that if we went into it, it would be nearly impossible to get out of it. It's going wrong in that it takes a secular view of helping the poor and not a Christian view. THe secular view tends to view man as generally good, thus giving him money is always good because he will use it for good. The Christian view realizes we are fallen and that by simply giving man money we are allowed him to be lazy. WE need to have welfare to work incentives.

On the other end, we have people saying that any effort to help the poor by the government should be vamped...that we should just forget it.

That is what the debate has been over.

[Marnie]

I am so sorry I started this.

[ted]

QUOTE(ted @ Feb 14 2006, 09:33 PM) *

In all of this, the US Government does support the poor with billions of dollars, right?

So, where is it going wrong?

t.

Yes and no. It does but it doesn't.

It gives money to the poor but unfortunately this tends to harm the poor more than helping them. It doesn't give them much help in way of getting a better job. Part of the reason my family has never accepted Welfare is that if we went into it, it would be nearly impossible to get out of it. It's going wrong in that it takes a secular view of helping the poor and not a Christian view. THe secular view tends to view man as generally good, thus giving him money is always good because he will use it for good. The Christian view realizes we are fallen and that by simply giving man money we are allowed him to be lazy. WE need to have welfare to work incentives.

On the other end, we have people saying that any effort to help the poor by the government should be vamped...that we should just forget it.

That is what the debate has been over.

Word.

And I agree.

Check your PM's, BTW.

t.

[apothanein kerdos]

In all of this, the US Government does support the poor with billions of dollars, right?

So, where is it going wrong?

Like anything else left in man's hands, it becomes abused. I think the idea of helping the poor is biblical, and indeed, to be excercised further. The main problems with the system is how it is abused from it's intent (both by the some in the Govt and by some recipients), and the very real possibility of the continued abuse leading to a slave state where people become too dependent on the system.

It's interesting to observe the history of the growing attachment to the welfare booty, but sad, as well. Like any other system where abusers can smell an easy dollar (such as the abuse of law suits), the welfare system implemented by the Govt has changed from it's original intent and grown into a monster which no longer can be contained in it's original cage.

Revamping would be nice, but at this point, will our leaders accept the change? How about those that receive the support?

I highly doubt it, and through it all, it just gets bigger.

The bigger it gets, the more we have to feed it.

The fact is, the welfare system in place today creates both a society which is growing ever more dependent on it, and leaders which now can use this fact to remain in power. All that is needed is a little bit of fear sprinkled around, and you have an instant mass of wiling recipients which no longer see a need to go out and find honest work.

This is a result of the abuse of the system, not a result of the intent of the system, or so I choose to believe.

To believe that it was created with these results in mind before hand would generate a little too much fear in my heart.

The trick now is, just what do we do to fix it?

Cutting off all aid is not the answer, because we are called to help the poor. Maybe we should take a good look at a couple of things.

1. Just what defines "the poor", anyway? Is one who is unwilling to work in the first place to be considered poor simply because he doesn't have money? Perhaps working on the persons desire to work in the first place could help. Unforeseen circumstances which drain a person's financial equity is certainly worthy of help, I guess. But, perhaps a set time/ dollar amount given to a person would give them the impression that the system is not meant as a life support system, but a system designed to help them in their time of need, with the understanding that they must also help themselves in areas such as drive and motivation and force them into self-sustainment.

I would pose that there are thousands upon thousands of folks which simply cannot support themselves, such as those with mental or severe physical handicaps. To these, we must understand that, as Christians, we have a responsibility to them as citizens.

2. Training.

Both mental and vocational training could be a boon to a society, as long as the recipient is willing to use the training to move forward. Perhaps one who didn't feel very worthy to the economic society would feel different given some training in which to work with. Perhaps money spent in this area would help things? Training someone to understand that people need to put forth an effort could help, as well.

As long as Government agencies charged with the distribution of free money to the citizens remain unconcerned with the amount of effort most put back into the system to get them to be self-reliant, we will be doomed to accept things the way they are.

Better oversight is needed to hold some feet to the fire.

Anyway, just a few random thoughts to plug in to the discussion.

I do think we are supposed to help the poor, both as individuals, and as governments. The trouble with the Government part, is that we have done it to such an extreme, that we now have so many problems with it, and people are tired of hearing about the abuses. We have created something to be laughed at through it's abuse, and now, we are left with a spoiled little red-headed stepchild that no one wants to deal with. We are past the point of ignoring it, so it's time to put it across our national knee and give it a good spanking, just like a bratty little kid sometimes reaches that point.

And, much like a bratty little kid, we certainly cannot kill it, either. The answer is to adjust it's attitude before it goes out and causes some real, unrepairable damage.

The trouble is, I'm only smart enough to see the problem, not fix it. So, I'll try to fix myself, instead.

Maybe, just maybe, if everyone (that can) fixes themselves as well, we might have a chance.

t.

t.

Excellent post!

Off of your number one point, I think of Jim Braddock who, in the movie and in real life, gave his "welfare" money back to the state after he had collected enough money to pay it off. I think your idea of welfare is great....it's also nice to have someone post who agrees with me.

[apothanein kerdos]

I would go back through all the other points AK but will not bother as it would be futile. I also am content that regardless of how you continue to make out like those who challenge your great intellect are all wrong in their interpretation, and lack understanding, that others will see through your rhetoric and see the truth that the verses you provided do not show that the government is responsible to help the poor.

That being said, I do want to respond to your comments on tithing. Tithing was set up in the Old Testament, as were all the scriptures you used to show the government is supposedly responsible to help the poor. The strongest book concerning tithes is Malachi, the final book of the Old Testament. Even the least educated people in the church know a tithe is not an arbatrary number, it means a tenth. Yes, the widow cast in all her living, but was not required to. Tithes were required. Jesus said the Pharisees paid tithes and also said it was something they should do, but not leaving the weightier matters undone.

Also, you are right, that I had my mind made up on this matter coming in, but so did you. You are interpreting scripture to try to prove your side, just as I am interpreting scripture to prove my side. When you fail to convince someone you are right, you revert to personal attacks and attempt to make yourself out right in everyone's eyes by telling everyone how educated you are. The most educated people in Israel at the time of the crucifiction denied Jesus was the Christ, so book knowledge alone doesn't make one spiritually smart. The Apostle Paul, then known as Saul, didn't recognize the Christ until Jesus made himself known to him on the road to Damascus. Saul was very intelligent and highly educated at the feet of Gamileo, yet lacked spiritual discernment.

All that being said, I have no hard feelings concerning this debate over ideas. In many areas I agree with your positions. It just happens that this is one area where I do not. I

have no doubt you are a brother in the Lord. I just wish you would learn to quit getting personal in your attacks when you get frustrated. It doesn't help your arguments. I have been guilty of the same thing in the past, but am trying to exhibit more patience.

It's equally insulting to a person when you lie and misrepresent what a person says when you're in a debate. Don't point the finger at me...by misrepresenting and outright lying (saying I agreed with you on your interpretation of scripture) is JUST as much of an insult.