Unfortunately, I believe your question is a true reflection of the natural world view. It is a basic tenet of evolution. Nature doesn't care for one paltry species and if that species is invasive, like us, eventually it will be too bad for us and others. We are now in the era of the Anthropocene and will be remembered for the sixth great extinction of species. All that is important for any life form is having enough resources to survive and procreate. When the resources get in short supply competition starts. We humans are no different from that basic drive. We think our intelligence is reflected in our technology which will allow us to overcome the basic rules. In the end our intelligence will fail us because it pits us against mother nature and instead of working with her and conforming to her rules. We will be the losers, not her.

It is a paternalistic world because men are stronger and can force their needs on the weaker especially women and children. It is up to the weaker groups to fight smarter.

I partially agree many of the poor are in that position due to their own making. They fall prey to absurdities presented by the strong and powerful. In the American Civil war it was the poor farmers that fell victim to the plantation owners spin about it being a "states Rights" issue (it was about slavery, period). the wealthy seldom fought but the poor died in droves. Trickle down economics is the modern version which too many poorly educated fall victim. Of course, the biggest absurdity is religion and again, the rich and powerful use it to manipulate others.

I've always found that very funny too.

Cognitive dissonance is key to their belief systems. If they can believe in their perverted interpretation of christianity then they can also believe that letting the poor suffer is better than feeding them.

If I end up commenting a lot, this will become redundant, but we aren't properly educated in epistemology. People are very confused about why they believe what they believe, and seldom have taken the time to justify it all. They'll adopt ideas to the extent that they are useful to what they currently believe, which is the backward way to do this. We need to start from scratch and start making it popular to think about what you believe and work avidly to avoid contradictions and abide by intuitive principles of reason.

Nothing. Evangelical true believers simply refuse to acknowledge any inconsistencies or contradictions.

Not familiar with this church Disciples of Christ. How are they different from Evangelists?