[quote=planetmark]I'm gonna get downright disagreeable with this. First, have a look at Abraham and Hagar. He booted her and her son out, sent them away, good bye, so long, end of story. Did God tell him "send her a check every month"?? No! God said "cast her out". Abraham sent her away with a bottle of water and some bread for the journey.[\quote]

Are you saying that the subject male of this current scenario is in the same ranking as Abraham? Are you suggesting that this current male subject has had such a relationship with God, that he could be placed on such a pedestal? Are you suggesting that God spoke to the male subject and told him to cast her out? I do think that you are adding to the related story of this current male that has not been stated to this entire forum by that male subject.



[quote=planetmark]If a woman, or the State, or anyone else comes along and takes a man's children away from him without his permission, then comes along wanting "support"... well, I'm just gonna restrain myself on what I think of that, and simply call it what it is: terrorism, hostage taking, or extortion. It is up to the soverign, nobody else, if he decides to let the child go, and if he decides to help "support" the child after its gone. NOBODY has the right to take a man's child away from him, and NOBODY has a right to demand financial support after the child is gone. Period.[\quote]

As I understood the story as related by the original poster, there was some degree of UNCERTAINTY as to who the real father of the child was. Now you presume to know (as the state presumes to know) what is best for this man, the woman, and the child. You in you omniscent glory, have looked inward to yourself and have determined that this man is in fact the father of the child. Now if this man, as he has so aptly expressed himself, is uncertain as to whether or not he is the father of the child, then HOW can anyone be taking HIS child away from him when we don't know for a fact that the child is his?

[quote=planetmark]If you disagree with that, show me the Scripture that suggests a man has a moral obligation to "support a child" once it is removed from the immediate provisions of his household. My little brain tells me that is pure propaganda.[\quote]

Matthew 7 beginning either at the first verse or jump to the subject at verse 7
"7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. "

I seem to think that this particular passage, relates a scenario, of if you expect God to do good to you, then you also have a responsibility to do good to others (he specifically declares your son).


[quote=planetmark]No government anywhere has the capacity to be trusted with such a severe infringement upon a man's rights. You give them the ability to even THINK about taking one person's money for the benefit of another, and we are all screwed. No exceptions. No human can be entrusted with so great a responsibility as determining how much of somebody else's money is fair game in a situation like that. [\quote]

I don't believe that I have stipulated that I trust government to handle financial affairs. I concur with you that we should NOT depend on the government, on the otherhand, the CHURCH has also failed in its' mission to care for those in the community. They (churches) have become another part of the government, and as such, if we are to do our part, then we can either give to the church (which will spend the greater portion on new pews, books, organ, recreation material for the child members, etc) or we can give it to the state, in the form of taxes, and allow them to give to those that are in need in the form of welfare, WIC, child-support, etc.. Or if you are that adamant about not giving to those that you do not trust, then take that 10% as a tithe and go out into the community and give to those that you directly see are in need.


Your last paragraph, I can accept as a meaningful display of negative emotions relating to some injustice that you have received at the hand of those demanding that you give them jurisdiction over you. As such, I cannot argue those points.

Now, you did not address the other moral obligations that we as a community of man have toward one another.. to care for one another, to meet the needs of those that are not capable of providing for themselves.. Etc.

Jerry.