Better than a welfare system
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
One infidel to another, this isn't really productive. Hijacking this thread and turning it into a Problem of Evil flamefest won't really prove, persuade, or even entertain.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
No, God gave people free will. God didn't do it Himself.
Was it His will? I don't know, how could I?!
Your conclusions are faulty.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
So God had the Israelites predict it-meaning the Holocaust would happen. Whether God intended the Holocaust to be carried out by Adolf Hitler, Marilyn Monroe, or Bob the Plumber still meant that He intended it to be carried out. Therefore, anyone in charge of carrying out the Holocaust had to be fulfilling the will of God, intentionaly or not and therefore was 'sent' by God to carry out His will.
If people do have free will, as you assert, then prophecies are bunk as they assume a specific and unique phenomena will occur in the future, something which cannot be assured if the future is not yet determined.
If people do have free will, as you assert, then prophecies are bunk as they assume a specific and unique phenomena will occur in the future, something which cannot be assured if the future is not yet determined.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
No, they aren't bunk. Free will doesn't mean the omnipotent God is blind to our decisions.
You are applying human rules to God... The entire concept of "Free Will" means God let's us do what we will. Good or bad.
The way you are trying to frame God, doesn't work that way.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
People have been wiping each other out for thousands of years. It isn't that hard to predict.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Uh guys. How the heck did you manage to pull a Godwynn discourse page one without even relating to the OP? :b
How do the concepts of free will and infallible prophecy mesh?
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Nah, it's just annoying.
Anyhow, I wasn't using it to contradict any argument... just an (amusing?) sidebar.
DroopyTofu
Double Bass Double Bass
Addressing the OP, as a Conservative Christian, I think it's good to have a safety net and for the government to help people, but I feel that the government should be there for the people who have paid into the system, not people who don't contribute to society but feel entitled to have the government pay for everything. In other words, you should only be able to take out what you put in. I also believe that if the churches and Christians of America were more focused on charity, then many problems could be fixed. To me, it's not a question of could more charity help the problem, it's a question of why aren't the American people working to fix the problem through charity.
What about people who genuinely weren't able to contribute because of whatever turn of events?
The welfare queen scenario is severly overstated.
Why is charity the only way through which the American people could solve a problem?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
The bible is actually much more compatible with Georgism than with conventional Conservativism or welfare-state-ism. It is made clear that Land is God's handiwork rather than the creation of any man, and so cannot be truly owned. It mandates Gleaner's Rights, so that landowners cannot monopolize all the natural resources they hold. Many of the church fathers attacked the ungenerous wealthy explicitly because their wealth comes form hoarding that which they did not create and to which they have no stronger a claim that do the poorest among us. These principles are very compatible with Christianity but do not depend on faith. The classical liberals argued rationally or them on purely secular grounds. A state which collects its income from taxes on wages and used them to protect the property of landowners is providing the rich a free lunch at the expense of their neighbors. Rents from scarce natural resources ought to belong to the community, while individuals ought to be able to keep the wages they earn.
If a social safety net is only there to provide for those who paid into the system, then there is no reason for this to be a function of government rather than a private institution in the free market. Having the state take money from an individual to buy services for that same individual is simply denying the individual the right to decide how to run his own life.
If a social safety net is only there to provide for those who paid into the system, then there is no reason for this to be a function of government rather than a private institution in the free market. Having the state take money from an individual to buy services for that same individual is simply denying the individual the right to decide how to run his own life.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
Because the American people, like most people, like their money, and damned if they're going to give it away to some welfare queen riding high on taxpayer cash!
Why do you keep implying that the conservatives on CFC are oppressed in some fashion? If that was so, why would going to a far-right conservative forum get any sensible answers if you think that they're afraid to post on a "liberal" site such as CFC?
DroopyTofu
Double Bass Double Bass
People that can't help themselves is one thing. Helping people who can help themselves and chose not to is what I have a problem with.
It's not the only way, but I think it is a good way and what the thread is about. I tend not to trust government and I think if a job can be better done without government involvement then it should be done without government involvement.
Such as? Handicapped people? Or just people with a lower income?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No one expects the inquisition....
Keep in mind that welfare is pretty hard to get in the US. The primary types available (excluding Social Security pensions) are disability, in which the person may or may not have a working career behind them. But it takes about 3 years and a lot of doctors reports before someone can be certified disabled. Food stamps, which you really only need to prove you have an income below the set threshold. AFDC, which is only availble to low income people (almost exclusively single parents) with dependent children. And sometimes subsidized housing, which again is about a very low income. Some of these people may or may not have made money at some point. But the biggest programs are really for the children, not for the adults. The adults only get any benefit because it is better to not break up the families.
These are not groups that you can say "they haven't paid enough, they don't deserve it". These are people with nothing, and no real chance of getting anything through their own efforts. and that is usually through no fault of their own. To cut them off is not just immoral and cruel, but it is cruelty towards the helpless. Actual welfare fraud occurs in such trivial amounts that it would cost the taxpayers more to root out the fraud than it would to just pay the benefits.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
To be fair, the people that willingly choose not to are so ridiculously few that a welfare system is simply worth the little loss.
People want to work and show that they can partake in a society. At least that's the culture over here.
What would you trust before your government?
I wouldn't blame you for not trusting the American government, but over here cross the Atlantic, we actually like that some few people have the power to keep us safe, wealthy and healthy.
