(In my view, Kennedy was last "good" Democratic president)

If you believe that, you are much too feeble minded to reason with.

If you believe that, you are much too feeble minded to reason with.

Well I am pretty old, but I am not feeble-minded yet. And I will admit that JFK was not perfect, but is there some particular reason you dont like him? I think that, like Reagan, he stood up to Atheist Russia pretty dam good if you ask me. But Russia has repented and is no longer an atheist nation, and we should make friends with them now (as Trump is trying to do). We very much need Russia to be our ally in the Battle against ISIS, otherwise we may loose the final battle between good and evil.

It was further extended in 1986, during Reagan's second term, by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court.

Mitt Romney, Republican governor of Massachusetts, imposed his "Romneycare", which included public financing of abortion, and Obamacare is patterned on that. Obamacare, with its public financing of abortion, was challenged and went to the Supreme Court, where a Republican majority could have shot it down. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts, a W appointee, sided with the Democrat minority to give Obamacare judicial sanction.

Looking back to 1973, it is the Republican Party, not the Democrats, that imposed Roe v Wade, then expanded it, then ensured public financing of abortion. In the first three cases, it was Republican ACTIVISM that imposed it. In the final case, it was the Republicans refusal to assert their power to prevent it.

The Republicans have played a good game at deceiving conservatives for decades, focusing conservative eyes on the fact that Democrats enthusiastically support Roe. Truth is, the Democrat didn't impose Roe on the country, and haven't been the ones to protect Roe, keep it alive and extend it. It has been the Republicans, through their control of the Supreme Court. They have been decisive. Unfortunately, this gets lost in the weeds behind Republican rhetoric.

Trump is the first Republican candidate to say he is pro-life, and to ALSO accompany that statement with a list of conservative judges from which he will choose his Supreme Court appointments.

So, with Trump we actually have a Republican President who will DO something about Roe judicially (which is the only place it can be struck down).

As far as the global warming bit, sea levels have been steadily rising 3 millimeters per year since we started keeping track of this in the 1800s. It's not rising faster. At that rate, the sea level will rise 1 foot in a hundred years. Trump's waterfront buildings won't be underwater for 10,000 years.

And scientists predict that, if Trump shoots down the Paris agreement and nothing is done about global warming, sea levels will rise by up to 22 feet in about a hundred years or so. Maybe not in Donald's lifetime, but in his children's lifetime. That will flood half of Florida and all of Manhattan (where 90 % of Trump's properties are). So I'm pretty sure he will soon change his mind about global warming.

Well, I will double-check when I have the time, but I'm pretty sure most of the justices who voted for Roe vs Wade were Democrats.

The Supreme Court was controlled by the Republicans in 1973. And every year since. The court has been entirely replaced since then, also, by Republican Presidents who all claimed to be pro- life, and yet they did not put a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court, not ever. Whenever they put up a pro-lifer, they then put one or two pro-choicers - consistently.

The Republicans gave us Roe, they extended Roe, and they made sure that a pro-choice majority stayed on the court.

The scientists who predict a 22 foot sea level rise in 100 years are like the doctors who recommended Camel cigarettes, and the scientists who said that Thalidomide was safe and effective but eggs were bad for your health: in serious error.

Evidently you failed science class and/or have never watched the news. It's already happening. About 90 percent of the Arctic ice has already melted (at least in the summer time) and while there is still a lot of ice in Greenland, it too is melting very fast. There is just a lot more ice there and it takes longer to melt. Scientists say when all of the Greenland ice has melted, it will raise sea levels 2 or 3 feet. And without ice, many animals in the arctic will become extinct. And the biggest ones are always the first to go. Polar bears are getting very hungry, and now for the first time, bears are coming into human campsites and eating humans (or trying to, and unless you are carrying a gun, you get eaten).

Now lets talk about the south pole. This year, for the first time in recorded history, Antarctica has started to melt. That's because, for the first time in the earth's history, a thick cloud of greenhouse gasses has appeared over Antarctica. It used to be far enough away from civilization so that greenhouse gasses couldn't reach it but not anymore. And it is melting fast. And it may take a hundred years or so, but when all of Antarctica's ice has melted, it will have raised sea-levels by 19 or 20 feet.

So add it all up and you get 22 feet, and Trumps campaign headquarters will be about 6 feet underwater.

The Supreme Court was controlled by the Republicans in 1973. And every year since. The court has been entirely replaced since then, also, by Republican Presidents who all claimed to be pro- life, and yet they did not put a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court, not ever. Whenever they put up a pro-lifer, they then put one or two pro-choicers - consistently.

The Republicans gave us Roe, they extended Roe, and they made sure that a pro-choice majority stayed on the court.

Even if what you say is true, it makes no difference whatsoever. Trump will repeal (or reverse) Roe vs Wade irregardless of who is responsible for the abomination.

Evidently you failed science class and/or have never watched the news.

I graduated with honors and a B.S. from an engineering school and then from pre-med. And had perfect SATs and ACTs to boot.

You?

As to watching the news, American media is less reliable than Pravda was.

Even if what you say is true, it makes no difference whatsoever. Trump will repeal (or reverse) Roe vs Wade irregardless of who is responsible for the abomination.

"Irregardless" is not a word. You meant "regardless".

Trump cannot "repeal" or "reverse" Roe. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Trump can appoint justices to the Supreme Court whom he expects to do that, when a case comes up, but he cannot enforce it.

To: interpreter "Evidently you failed science class and/or have never watched the news."

I graduated with honors and a B.S. from an engineering school and then from pre-med. And had perfect SATs and ACTs to boot.

You?

As to watching the news, American media is less reliable than Pravda was.

Well, I also have a degree in BS (electronics actually, and I used to work on vacuum-tube computers, but I am presently working on a BS in Theology) And I have an IQ of 140.

And I have found American news programs to be pretty reliable overall (compared to other nations and especially Pravda).

"Irregardless" is not a word. You meant "regardless".

Trump cannot "repeal" or "reverse" Roe. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Trump can appoint justices to the Supreme Court whom he expects to do that, when a case comes up, but he cannot enforce it.

Irregardless is a good Texas word and we Texans use it a lot. Let me define it for you. It basically means "There's no way in hell you're right."

And irregardless of what you say, Trump is going to reverse Roe vs Wade one way or another.

Well, I also have a degree in BS (electronics actually, and I used to work on vacuum-tube computers, but I am presently working on a BS in Theology) And I have an IQ of 140.

And I have found American news programs to be pretty reliable overall (compared to other nations and especially Pravda).

I'm glad you're smart too. Now stay smart and don't insult other people's intelligence. That's dumb.

You believe that the sea level is going to rise 22 feet in this coming century. Apparently you really believe it.

If you were working on vacuum tubes in electronics, you're probably in your late 60's or your 70's, retired, collecting Social Security, which gives you time to study theology - a B.S., not a B.A., in theology? Really? Through Liberty U online, perhaps?

Statistically speaking, you only have a few more years to live, so you won't see the flooding you expect during your lifetime. Of course, if the sea level rise is linear, the seas should be a foot or more higher already by the time you shuffle off this mortal coil, because they should be rising at a rate of over 2.5" per year to get to 22 feet by 2116, assuming linear rises.

If you live as long as Jean Calment did, you've got another 50 years or so, and you should see ten feet or more in that time.

Considering that China and India and Indonesia and Brazil aren't going to give up their development, the ongoing pollution is a given, and that will mean that the global warming will continue apace, no matter what we do.

It's always interesting to see how people really believe certain things with such certitude.

And irregardless of what you say, Trump is going to reverse Roe vs Wade one way or another.

If he wins, you're right.

If he doesn't, then nope.

For my part, I hope he wins. I support his plan for peace with Russia. I support his protectionism. I support his plans to throttle illegal immigration. I expect he will convert Obamacare to single-payer, which he used to support.

If he doesn't, then nope.

For my part, I hope he wins. I support his plan for peace with Russia. I support his protectionism. I support his plans to throttle illegal immigration. I expect he will convert Obamacare to single-payer, which he used to support.

Well blow me down. If you actually support Trump, I will have to take back most of the stuff I said about you. My apologies.

And as for what University I am going to end up getting a degree in Theology from, I really have no clue at this juncture. Basically I want to obtain a degree of some sort in Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew without having to study someone else's theology (because I have my own and generally speaking, I do not agree with anyone else's except perhaps the conservative wing of the Episcopal/Anglican Church).

And irregardless of what you say, Trump is going to reverse Roe vs Wade one way or another.

First he has to win. Given your claims to be 100% in your predictions, you have quite a mountain to climb for Trump to get to 270 electoral votes.

Are you still sticking with a Trump victory?

First he has to win. Given your claims to be 100% in your predictions, you have quite a mountain to climb for Trump to get to 270 electoral votes.

Are you still sticking with a Trump victory?

Yes I am, and I have never been wrong with my predictions for 25 years now.

But I am now having to get on the internet 24/7 (except when I'm asleep) to make sure it happens. Otherwise I will be a failed prophet, and those types are to be stoned to death (according to the Old Testament) and I for sure don't want that to happen.

If you actually support Trump,

I have supported Trump since the beginning, since way back last year, because I agree with his policies:

Stop illegals at the border, end the free trade nonsense, make peace with Russia to fight the Muslim terrorists, and appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court (who will, among other things, overturn Roe v Wade).

That's why I support Trump. It's also why I don't care about his sex life. I'm not marrying him, I'm hiring him to advance an agenda.

His agenda is essentially opposed to everything that the Republican Party has stood for (or done behind the scenes, in the case of abortion) for a long time. I don't like Republicans. Their economics are stupid and they plunge us into wars we lose.

I don't like Democrats: they're babykillers.

But I DO like Trump, because he's a nationalist, protectionist who would end the Cold War. And he's pro-life.

That's why I've supported him - to the point that I will very grudgingly vote for a Republican, even after I said "No Mas" after holding my nose and voting for Romney in the last election.

If Trump loses, Hillary gets the court and with it, the Republicans never win another election...which will be time to say "Fuck it" and move to France where the food is better and living is easier.

First he has to win. Given your claims to be 100% in your predictions, you have quite a mountain to climb for Trump to get to 270 electoral votes.

Are you still sticking with a Trump victory?

I'm not a prophet, but I also still think he will win.

I think the media has done their absolute worst, and the real polls are still practically at the margin of error.

And I think that people know that this time it's IT.

I think that the Trump vote will be the American Brexit, and that he will win.

If I'm wrong, nobody needs to stone me, because I'm not a prophet.

I have supported Trump since the beginning, since way back last year, because I agree with his policies:

Stop illegals at the border, end the free trade nonsense, make peace with Russia to fight the Muslim terrorists, and appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court (who will, among other things, overturn Roe v Wade).

That's why I support Trump. It's also why I don't care about his sex life. I'm not marrying him, I'm hiring him to advance an agenda.

His agenda is essentially opposed to everything that the Republican Party has stood for (or done behind the scenes, in the case of abortion) for a long time. I don't like Republicans. Their economics are stupid and they plunge us into wars we lose.

I don't like Democrats: they're babykillers.

But I DO like Trump, because he's a nationalist, protectionist who would end the Cold War. And he's pro-life.

That's why I've supported him - to the point that I will very grudgingly vote for a Republican, even after I said "No Mas" after holding my nose and voting for Romney in the last election.

If Trump loses, Hillary gets the court and with it, the Republicans never win another election...which will be time to say "Fuck it" and move to France where the food is better and living is easier.

I agree with everything you said, except perhaps for a little minor detail, and it has to do withe the "illegal" Mexican immigrants. First of all, most of them are not rapists or whatever Trump said. Most of them are actually very devout Roman Catholics and would't harm a flea. And secondly, it is mostly American farmers who hire them and they badly need them to harvest their crops, because as a general rule, no American wants to do it So I think Trump should let all the Mexicans who want to come into America at harvest season (after they are properly vented as he likes to say) and make all the money they want to legally. And after the harvest season, send them home to their families. And I'm not going to France if Hilary wins. I'm going to Mexico where I like both the food and the women, and it also helps that the cost of living is very cheap there. Gonna have to brush up on my Spanish though.

if hillary wins im going to quebec.

That's also a good choice. I've been to Canada and I love the Canadians. They are always very honest and friendly and helpful, good people.

because as a general rule, no American wants to do it

Americans will do that work for the appropriate wage. Wages have to be living wages. That means that the price of food will have to go up.

Americans will do that work for the appropriate wage. Wages have to be living wages. That means that the price of food will have to go up.

I for one don't want the price of food going up. That's because I live on a very limited fixed income and I'm getting less than a 1% increase in my SS check and cant afford to pay more for food. I say bring in the Mexicans, all who want to come. May the Lord bless them.

I for one don't want the price of food going up. That's because I live on a very limited fixed income and I'm getting less than a 1% increase in my SS check and cant afford to pay more for food. I say bring in the Mexicans, all who want to come. May the Lord bless them.

If we're going to let in the Mexicans, then I say they get minimum wage and exactly the same labor protections and social welfare as everybody else. Human beings are human beings, and we have no right to force them to raise their children in poverty, working in this country for cheaper food.

If paying everybody a living wage forces the prices up, then I say that Social Security must be fully increased to cover the cost differential, and food stamps or other means found to make it possible for you to eat healthy while the people all the way down the food chain to the bean picker below you ALSO gets paid a living wage.

That will mean, inevitably, that profit concentration will have to be taxed at the top, and redistributed downward.

And that is the very reason why Democrats are the majority party in America over time - because their economics are that of a living wage for all, while Republicans stubbornly refuse to care about the people at the bottom, and pretend that there is a way they can live without having to be paid more.

Well, there isn't. There isn't a way for you to do it, and there isn't a way for the Mexican illegals to do it either, without living in squalor without health care or protection.

Anybody living on the soil of the United States is entitled to live at a basic level of dignity. We can do that either by a guaranteed wage from government, or through private wages, or a combination of the two.

But we cannot exploit illegal Mexican beanpickers and make them live little better than slaves to keep the cost of our food low. That is evil and immoral and it must be stopped.

Republicans have never been willing to face the truth of economics, which is why they find it harder and harder and harder to win elections in a country filling up with poor people on account of their policies.

We already have a social safety net, paid for by wealth redistribution through taxes. That net will get thicker and more protective, and there will be more wealth redistribution.

If we don't want taxes too high, then we have to STOP the foreign military adventures and imperialism that devour about 30% of our money (taxed and borrowed).

IF we want to continue to be big swinging dicks on the world stage, then we have to accept higher taxes on the top.

Republicans want to be big swinging dicks on the world stage AND to not have wealth redistribution sufficient to have a social safety net. That's why Republicans are losing the country: it's a ridiculous and unsustainable set of beliefs.

Sorry but I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders or socialism like you espouse. And Mexicans make far more money in the US than they can at home, and they are perfectly happy with their wages. And my family, my cousins in the valley, happen to pay the Mexicans very well thank you and they are not mistreated in any way. And right now they need orange and grapefruit pickers if you are willing to go there and work for the minimum wage. No? I thought not.

Ok, then: be stubborn about it and continue to lose your country.

Hillary will probably win. I don't want her to, but she probably will. Democrats have the innate advantage in American politics because of the social safety net.

Hillary will grant amnesty and a path to citizenship to the illegals, and then you will have beanpickers earning minimum wages and unionizing - with government support - and you'll have all of those millions of new Democrat voters voting to redistribute the wealth.

If Hillary wins this election, you will never again see a Republican President. It's over. And the REASON it's over is that the Republicans have been resisting the social safety net since FDR, and over time they have lost the electorate.

As long as there was ANOTHER issue - the Cold War - to keep them in the game the Republicans could occasionally eke out a win, but they never were able to unravel the social safety net, despite talking about doing so and making runs at it.

Let Hillary run the place with a Democrat Supreme Court, and the world changes quickly and permanently.

I'm fine with it. Import 11 million Catholics and let's see what happens. The country comes to meet me more.

But you're not going to be fine with it. You've painted yourself into a corner. There's no way out. You better hope that Trump wins, as I do. If he loses, I'll be fine. You'll see the pillars of your world, your belief systems, crumble around you BECAUSE those beliefs were not founded on the bedrock of truth.

I can make the same argument for Trump. If Hillary looses the election, you will probably never see another Democratic President because their lies they've been telling ever since LBJ will all be debunked once and for all. Christians are ordained to rule the earth, and not Muslims and atheists. The end of the world as we now know it is now upon us, never to be heard from again because "politically incorrect" Christians like Trump will rule the earth's politics for the next 1000 years. The US election is part of the final battle between good and evil. Hilary is the evil one (working for Satan) and Trump is clearly the "good" one working for Christians and everything that is good. It is like the difference between night and day, and it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Republicans gave us Roe v Wade and Casey.

Republicans are opposed to social welfare and quite cold to the plight of the poor.

Republicans plunged us into disastrous forever wars in the Middle East (Democrats did that in Korea and Vietnam, but Republicans continued Vietnam for twice as long as the Democrats).

The notion that Republicans are more moral than Democrats is risible.

I'm voting for Trump because he opposes free trade, which I also hate, because he wants to control the Border, which I also want done, and because he wants to make peace and alliance with the Russians - the very opposite of what EITHER the Democrats OR Republicans want to do.

That's why I support Trump, and it'll be a shame if he loses.

But even if he wins, the Democrats won't be finished for good, because the Republicans still, as a party, oppose the social safety net, and with the huge Hispanic population here already, having children who are born citizens, the weight of Democrat demographics becomes heavier and heavier on one side of the scale.

Trump has said he will try to reverse that, but while Clinton can move by Executive Orders, Trump can't - he'll be constrained by Congressional Republicans, and THEY have always connived at open borders, precisely for the reason you like them: cheap labor.

I recognize, too, that if Trump loses you're going to have an existential crisis of faith, so for your sake I hope he wins.

Read Exodus again. Read about the tithe. Read the Prophet Amos and the Prophet Malachi. Read the accusations by God against the kings of Israel for not taking care of the poor, the sick, the widow and the orphan.

You have gotten the Bible wrong. So many Republicans have. And the net result of your getting it wrong is that you justify callous indifierence to the poor by the government. Republicans have systematically opposed the social welfare state since the 1930s. The end game of that evil stance may well be the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the end of the Republican Party as a viable force.

I still want Trump to win, but if he doesn't, there is plenty about what Hillary will do that is decent and reasonable. She will do it in a dicatorial manner, and not bother to try to bring you in using Christian logic. But the Biblical logic is certainly THERE.

In a democracy, if you refuse to take care of your own people, you don't stay in power.

Read the Bible again you're wrong again.

I have read the entire Bible from cover to cover several times now, and I know every single word it says. How many times have you read it?

I have read the entire Bible from cover to cover several times now, and I know every single word it says. How many times have you read it?

You have failed your own thread because you are defensive. Stone is a devout Christian. As much as I don't defend his methods of outrageness MADDNESS as the administrator of LF, I am cautioning you, that he just might want kick your ass out of here.

You have failed your own thread because you are defensive. Stone is a devout Christian. As much as I don't defend his methods of outrageness MADDNESS as the administrator of LF, I am cautioning you, that he just might want kick your ass out of here.

Well, you can try to shut me up if you want, but I will never stop speaking the truth as long as I have a breath left in my body. And i'm sorry if I've offended a few Christians in the process, but my main objective on this site, and any website I post on, is to convert the hard-core atheists and not Christians who are already Christians. My apologies to any Christians I have "offended" in the process.

I can.

Well, you can try to shut me up if you want

Ahhhh ... SHADDUP already.

I disagree completely with your basic premise. It is up to the Churches to care for the needy, not the government. According to the Bible, the only job of the "king" (or president, whatever) is to defend the Church and to conquer on its behalf. (and of course that involves assessing taxes to support the military and police). Other than that, the government has no other function in the proper marriage between Church and State, period, no exceptions or ifs, ands, or buts.

So, Social Security is evil. And so is Medicare.

So, then, do you want me to take you through the Bible to show you what you missed, to show you that the Social Security upon which you depend for life is not some sort of sinful apparatus that should, instead, be provided by private Christian charity?

I can.

LOL. I need to take you through the Bible and show you what you missed. And I can easily do that.

As for Social Security, in the old days, and for about 1800 years the Church did indeed take care of the elderly and all the needy, and the system worked pretty good if you ask me. Besides, the government is not "giving" me my SS check. It is basically my money that I worked hard for and the gov is just repaying me. That is not a sin, but the socialism you propose is (IMHO).

As for Social Security, in the old days, and for about 1800 years the Church did indeed take care of the elderly and all the needy, and the system worked pretty good if you ask me.

Besides, the government is not "giving" me my SS check. It is basically my money that I worked hard for and the gov is just repaying me. That is not a sin, but the socialism you propose is (IMHO).

That system did not, in fact, work all that well at all. In truth, old people were primarily cared for by their FAMILIES, on the FARM (where there was always food and shelter). Old women without families were apt to be burnt by the Church as witches during certain key periods of history.

We no longer have the family farm. With the industrial revolution, people migrated to cities, moved into small and expensive apartments, and no longer have the shelter to provide to elderly parents, nor the food out of the fields, nor the excess income to feed them.

What worked more or less throughout agricultural history - which was primarily FAMILY taking care of their own, not the Church (there is no Church to speak of in China or other traditional Asian societies, and yet this "care for the old on the farm" theme has been a staple of ALL agricultural societies, not just Christian ones) stopped working and does not work in the modern age of city dwelling.

There's no farm. There's no space. There's no food. And there's no excess income. The capital base of the family farm is gone. There was no Social Security or Welfare to speak of in the first half of the Great Depression. There was just "the Church", and it did not provide nearly enough: the numbers of poor were too massive and the suffering too dire. Social Security and unemployment benefits quite dramatically stabilized that.

You get much more out of Social Security and Medicare than you ever put into it. And were there no Social Security or Medicare, you would not be able to replace what they provide with private insurance and investment.

I will be happy to go through the Bible with you, front to back.

That system did not, in fact, work all that well at all. In truth, old people were primarily cared for by their FAMILIES, on the FARM (where there was always food and shelter). Old women without families were apt to be burnt by the Church as witches during certain key periods of history.

We no longer have the family farm. With the industrial revolution, people migrated to cities, moved into small and expensive apartments, and no longer have the shelter to provide to elderly parents, nor the food out of the fields, nor the excess income to feed them.

What worked more or less throughout agricultural history - which was primarily FAMILY taking care of their own, not the Church (there is no Church to speak of in China or other traditional Asian societies, and yet this "care for the old on the farm" theme has been a staple of ALL agricultural societies, not just Christian ones) stopped working and does not work in the modern age of city dwelling.

There's no farm. There's no space. There's no food. And there's no excess income. The capital base of the family farm is gone. There was no Social Security or Welfare to speak of in the first half of the Great Depression. There was just "the Church", and it did not provide nearly enough: the numbers of poor were too massive and the suffering too dire. Social Security and unemployment benefits quite dramatically stabilized that.

You get much more out of Social Security and Medicare than you ever put into it. And were there no Social Security or Medicare, you would not be able to replace what they provide with private insurance and investment.

I will be happy to go through the Bible with you, front to back.

Well, Jesus commanded the Church as a whole to take care of the widows, and not just their children -- just like the God of the Old Testament commanded all the Israelites to do. And no widows were burnt at the stake for God's sake.

And no widows were burnt at the stake for God's sake.

The people who were doing the burning thought they were burning "witches" for God's sake. The burnings were preceded by witch trials. Elderly women, widows, were the chief victims.

The people who were doing the burning thought they were burning "witches" for God's sake. The burnings were preceded by witch trials. Elderly women, widows, were the chief victims.

Well, I saw the movie, and the "witches" looked pretty young to me. Irregardless, Jesus told us to take care of the widows, not kill them.

rregardless, Jesus told us to take care of the widows, not kill them.

Yes, he did. As did YHWH before him. Jesus and YHWH both recognized that women without support - young or especially old (as women outlive men substantially), will always need help, and they both gave commandments to do so.

With YHWH there was the commandment to honor father and mother, the tithe by which the Levites were to minister aid to the poor, the forgiveness of debt, the requirement to lend to the poor who asked, the prohibition on interest, and the reversion of land.

Jesus specifically referred to the commandment to honor parents by denying that a religious gift could substitute for the requirement that children spend money to take care of their parents. Indeed, Jesus said that to give the money as "korban" as opposed to spending it on the parents, as required to honor them, was sin. Jesus vastly expanded the scope of individual responsibility for poverty relief, without, however, relaxing the communal requirements of YHWH.

Yes, he did. As did YHWH before him. Jesus and YHWH both recognized that women without support - young or especially old (as women outlive men substantially), will always need help, and they both gave commandments to do so.

With YHWH there was the commandment to honor father and mother, the tithe by which the Levites were to minister aid to the poor, the forgiveness of debt, the requirement to lend to the poor who asked, the prohibition on interest, and the reversion of land.

Jesus specifically referred to the commandment to honor parents by denying that a religious gift could substitute for the requirement that children spend money to take care of their parents. Indeed, Jesus said that to give the money as "korban" as opposed to spending it on the parents, as required to honor them, was sin. Jesus vastly expanded the scope of individual responsibility for poverty relief, without, however, relaxing the communal requirements of YHWH.

I agree with everything you say here 100 % with the exception of the last sentence in which you sneakily substitute the word "communal" for the word Church and/or Levites. The Levites were basically the Jewish "Church." That is, they were the priests and they were responsible for taking care of the widows. Knowing you, by substituting the word "communal" you are trying to imply the State had something to do with it which is not true at all. According to the Bible, the State has its job to do, and the Church/Levites have their job to do. So why do you keep insisting on mixing the two separate entities together?

According to the Bible, the State has its job to do, and the Church/Levites have their job to do.

THERE IS NO STATE SEPARATE FROM THE LEVITES AND PRIESTS IN EXODUS.

You keep saying "The Bible says". Open it and read Exodus and Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy - you say "the state" - WHAT State? Where is there any State mentioned AT ALL, OTHER THAN the priests and Levites?

ALL Law was given by God to the Hebrews. He gave them NO legislature, and the only executive he gave them was the promise of a prophet to lead them in time of risk. HE gave ALL of the law, of everything, DIRECTLY, and he forbade them from making any additional laws, or subtracting any laws. The government he provided, to enforce the law, were the Levites and priests - they were the JUDGES of Israel, of the law, God provides not just the laws, he also provides a table of JUDGMENTS - how the Judges must JUDGE the cases.

At no point in God's law of Israel, given at Sinai and in the tent in the desert, does he ever leave any discretion, at all, to the judgment of the Israelites. He gives them no ability to legislate for themselves, no ability to set rules. He is the God-King - and says so explicitly to Samuel when the Israelites call for a king - he says that the Israelites are rejecting HIM, and as God-King, he gives ALL of the law, and gives his people NO power to make any law.

Moses, on his father-in-law's advice, creates a judicial structure by numbers, but then God provides all the law, and all of the judgments that the judges must give.

And he provides that the Levitical priests - the term for them in Hebrew means "administrator" are to collect the tithe (this is a tax, for payment of Levite expenses and for poverty relief, it is a law, mandatory, not optional, and if not paid will be imposed by the judgment of the Levitical judges), and they are to use it to live, and to support the poor, the orphan, the widow and the sick. This IS government. This IS the state. There is NO OTHER STATE anywhere in the Law.

The human kings of Israel were a REJECTION of God and God's law, and God said, through Samuel, from the very beginning of the monarchy that the kings would squeeze the people, exploit them and, ultimately, be corrupt.

That's precisely what happened. Saul was a terrible king. David was successful militarily, but he was actually a pretty bad king overall: he did not leave a stable Israel. Solomon started out wise but ended up a terrible king. And after that, the unity of Israel was destroyed forever.

The Israelite monarchy was NOT the state that God set up. It was set up CONTRARY to the will of God, and God made that very clear - for the Israelites to have a King was a REJECTION of God, not God's intention for Israel. He intended to rule Israel DIRECTLY, as he had from the Exodus onward.

The Levites and Priests WERE the State, along with God, and prophetic war leaders sent by God. The Torah is not a religious rulebook, it is the constitution and lawbook of Israel. ALL of the laws, regulations and judgments of Israel are contained in that book, including the fact that the Israelites were not given the right or power to make any ADDITIONAL laws from any sort of councils, etc. The only government in God's Israel was the "Church" as you call it. It was an absolute theocracy with no separate civil state. God was the King. The Priests and Levites were the administrators and judges. Prophets were hand selected by God to be temporary military leaders in time of threat. There was no standing police force, no standing army, and no right for the Israelites to have even a town council to set local rules. ALL of the rules for the state are in the Torah.

The "Church/State separation" that you espouse is NOT IN THE TORAH AT ALL. God's law for Israel was an absolute theocracy with no vote for anything, ever, and no government at all, just judges, who were priests.

Go back and read it, and remember that Saul, David and Solomon were chosen by God, but the Israel Kingship itself was a REJECTION of God, and a Fall from grace, not an institution God created. God was King. The Israelites rejected him for a human king. God said it was a rejection of him, and warned them that they would serve corrupt kings instead of serving God. They clamored for a King nevertheless, so God let them fall, chose kings by hand, and the kings he chose were men and fell.

David and Solomon are NOT the model of government under God's law. God's law had no king and no legislature. God alone was king and legislature and commander. Priests were the judges and civil servants, appointed prophets were temporary lieutenants.

Joshua was not the commander of the Hosts of Israel. God was. The Archangel Michael was his general in command. Joshua was the human lieutenant in the field, subject to the commands of a commanding angel and a commander-in-chief God. God never gave men in Israel ANY DISCRETION AT ALL to rule themselves outside of the family. He imposed the law, and imposed a priesthood to enforce it and collect taxes and distribute charity. THAT is the constitution and government according to God: absolute direct theocracy, with no place for the human voice to ever express its own will.

Go read your Torah again, and stop pretending that there was a separation of Church and State under God's law. The state in Israel WAS the judges, and they were the Levitical priests. God was King, directly. There was no legislative branch.