My House Message Board - Msg: 18189711

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : My House

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (3472)	11/3/2002 6:09:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 7689

The quote was in perfect context. I dealt with the part succeeding the conjunction immediately after because they involved separate issues. All you did to dispute my response was to quote further into your post. You did not demonstrate how a Constitution and laws make your relationship with government arbitrary. I never said that the constitution and laws make the relationship with government arbitrary. What makes the relationship with the government arbitrary is the fact that the government can and does exceed the limitations the constitution placed on it. By part after the conjunction was the whole point of the statement and quoting it without its point is making an out of context quote. Sorry. If you know of an illegal law it is still not arbitrary...it is criminal. Or did you mean by "the law" that the entire law was unconstitutional? I meant simply that the federal government exceeds the authority granted to it by the constitution and has for many years. Apparently, you think each individual is to define what is criminal for the whole? So if we think a law is just, and we call you a criminal for breaking it, we should not be doing that if you claim it is unjust? If I break a law you can call me what you want. Obviously you have your own opinions about specific laws and specific law breakers. However I doubt that your opinion would extend to the point of considering every law just or every violation of a law wrong. If it does I disagree with that opinion. "If you take from those who work and/or invest and give to those who don't you lower the incentive to create wealth." Your next sentence referred to the ability to have a safety net without an extensive welfare state. A less extensive welfare state also reduces the incentive to work, just not as much. A minimum safety net amounts to preventing those who can't work from starving. There is some harm done even by that but most people would consider the harm to be outweighed by the good. Yes it would. Those who did not give generously were indeed threatened with Hell. Luke Chap 21 v 1-4 "# 1) Jesus looked around in the temple. He saw the place where the people put in their money. Rich people were putting in their money. # 2) And he saw a poor woman whose husband was dead. She put in two small pieces of money. # 3) Jesus said, `I tell you the truth. This poor woman has given more than all the other people. # 4) All these people had plenty of money and they gave only a part of it. She was poor and she gave everything she had. She has nothing left to live on.'" Where is she threatened with hell? Mark Chap 12 v 41-44 " 41. Jesus sat down in the temple near the place where people put in their money. He saw how the people put in money. Many rich people put in much money. 42. A poor woman, whose husband was dead, came. She put in two small pieces of money. 43. Jesus called his disciples. He said, `I tell you the truth. This poor woman has given more money than all the other people. 44. All these people had plenty of money and they gave only a part of it. She was poor and she gave everything she had. She has nothing left to live on.' " Or if you don't like those translations find another one. Here is one jesustribute.com Show me where she is threatened with Hell. The people who are both rich an miserly might be threatened with hell judging by your quote but it's far from clear that that would apply to the woman infact it seems clear that it does not “But woe to YOU rich persons..." In any case I'm fairly sure that neither of us think that in reality poor people have to give almost all of the limited amount they have to charity or a religious organization or go to hell. I don't think you even believe in hell. So since we agree that she did not face the prospect of going to hell and even within the story there is no sign that she was threatened with hell there is no reason to consider her as having to give up the money or go to hell. However the IRS is a little more certain. I believe we can both agree that your taking a big risk if you don't pay taxes. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next