• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Healthcare question for Christians

WWJD?

  • Total voters
    34
Hey I'd just like to point out, uhm, if he was coming back, according to his book there, we are in for a world of hurt.....


4 horsemen and ****....


Healthcare would be irrellevant....
 
angrycarpenter said:
The entire point, the very basis of Christianity is to act in the example of Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes. To choose to freely give of yourself to those that need it.
Forcing others to give outside their will to do so is not found in and does not follow from that example.
 
To give a bit of an analogy as to why "helping people" no matter how you're doing it is not necessarily a virtue.

Everyone remember as a kid when some kids are "forced" to apologize?

If you go, and apologize for something, because you're told if you don't you'll suffer harsher consquences, but you don't have any remorse or guilt for what you did and would do it again in a heart beat then that apology is hardly a virtue.

if you however wrong someone, feel guilt and remose over that, and offer a heart felt apology because you truly believe you were wrong then that is a virtue of someone admitting and accepting their own mistakes.

Both instances has someone "apologizing for their mistake" however in one case they're doing it because they're forced to and in reality they have my remorse in the least and in the other case its sincere, heartfealt, and done freely.
 
Gwendoline said:
Why would you feel "forced" to help others? Isn't "helping others" a natural by-product of being a Christian?
Click to expand...

You could be forced to help others. Someone could put a gun to my head to make me help you with your problems, but that wouldn't be altruism. God wants help that is done from the bottome of one's heart not the barrel of a gun
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Why is it stupid?
Click to expand...

The end results matters more than the 'motive' to me.
I never realised just how strong it had to be 'voluntary' in Christianity.
I thought it was the same as Islam in that it was a obligation, something that is part and parcel of being a Christian. You cannot be a Muslim without performing zakat.
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
You could be forced to help others. Someone could put a gun to my head to make me help you with your problems, but that wouldn't be altruism. God wants help that is done from the bottome of one's heart not the barrel of a gun
Click to expand...

In Matthew 5:41, Jesus instructs, "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two."
 
Gwendoline said:
Why would you feel "forced" to help others? Isn't "helping others" a natural by-product of being a Christian?
Click to expand...
You don't understand.

The Christian virtue of helping others is derived from the fact that -you- have -chosen- to give up part of -yourself- to improve someone's life.

That's the example set at the crucifixtion.

Forcing others toi help? Not the same.
Beinng forced to hel? Not the same.
 
Goobieman said:
I have already addressed the error in this position.
Repeating that position does nothing.
Click to expand...

Unless you can show that you live under a dictatorship and thus the government is not reflection of the values and priorities of the people, then you can't exclude your actions at the voting booth and the town hall from the commandments of scripture.

You can say that you don't believe the health care proposals in congress would work, and thus would not help the poor, and thus you don't support them, and that would be a perfectly valid position to take as a Christian.

However, you cannot say in a republic or a democracy that christian values of compassion do not have to be reflected in the government that represents you. That is nothing but pure heresy.

For example, take SCHIP, the program that is a cooperative effort between the federal government and the states to provide health coverage to children of the working poor. That program did not come about as a result of a decree from Caesar where all were forced to comply. Instead, it was a result of the actions of people at the voting booth and their petitioning of their government that represents them. The people could just as easily choose to abolish it. That is why you don't get to use the excuse you are using to compartmentalize God.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. To choose to freely give of yourself to those that need it.
Forcing others to give outside their will to do so is not found in and does not follow from that example.
Click to expand...

What if the example of Christ's compassion was expanded to a society rather than just the individual? A Christian society would worry about the poor first and the cost second. Why do so many Christians seem to be on the side of abandoning the poor to suffer? I want an explanation on that one. Why haven't Christians demanded an end to a system that leaves so many out in the cold?
 
Goobieman said:
Its all based on free will - you have to make the choice to help others.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose so many don't make the choice to help others? And more than not choosing to help others, why is it those who genuinely need help are sometimes treated like utter crap and told that they are to blame by those that never seem to get around to the choice of helping others?
 
Gwendoline said:
Why do you suppose so many don't make the choice to help others?
Click to expand...
Beats me. Its their choice to make.

And more than not choosing to help others, why is it those who genuinely need help are sometimes treated like utter crap and told that they are to blame by those that never seem to get around to the choice of helping others?
Click to expand...
Beats me. That's their choice to make as well.

What's your point?
 
Gwendoline said:
Why do you suppose so many don't make the choice to help others? And more than not choosing to help others, why is it those who genuinely need help are sometimes treated like utter crap and told that they are to blame by those that never seem to get around to the choice of helping others?
Click to expand...

Some people choose to be selfish, but what's life without choices?
 
angrycarpenter said:
What if the example of Christ's compassion was expanded to a society rather than just the individual?
Click to expand...

Of course it includes society. That is the problem with their attempts to compartmentalize God. Society is not a separate entity. Its merely the collective group of individuals. Thus if a society is composed of Christians it should reflect the same values collectively that Christians should reflect individually.
 
angrycarpenter said:
What if the example of Christ's compassion was expanded to a society rather than just the individual?
Click to expand...
Christianity is all about the individual, and the consequences of his actions. Each of uis is responsible for what we do, not what others do.
Any expansion to this effect to a societal level is a function thereof.

Why do so many Christians seem to be on the side of abandoning the poor to suffer?
Click to expand...
Show that they do.

Why haven't Christians demanded an end to a system that leaves so many out in the cold?
Click to expand...
Christians act independently of the system, and do not care what the system is.
 
Wasn't it Liberals screaming about seperation of church and state with Bush?
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
You could be forced to help others. Someone could put a gun to my head to make me help you with your problems, but that wouldn't be altruism. God wants help that is done from the bottome of one's heart not the barrel of a gun
Click to expand...

No one is putting a gun to your head. There is no barrel of a gun. Your metaphors are bizarre / extreme and don't help at all.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course it includes society. That is the problem with their attempts to compartmentalize God. Society is not a separate entity. Its merely the collective group of individuals. Thus if a society is composed of Christians it should reflect the same values collectively that Christians should reflect individually.
Click to expand...
The only thing you can take from this is that the "need" for UHC illustrates that the US is NOT Christian society to the point were enough people give to charity to meet the needs of the old and sick.

It does nothing to bolster the position that Christians, as part of a basic tenet of their faith, should force other people to provide for the sick and poor.
 
Last edited:
Gwendoline said:
No one is putting a gun to your head. There is no barrel of a gun. Your metaphors are bizarre / extreme and don't help at all.
Click to expand...

So people choose to pay taxes?
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Wasn't it Liberals screaming about seperation of church and state with Bush?
Click to expand...
Yes.
And this point usually comes up in this convesation:
A law that forces all people to adhere to the tenets of a religion necessarily violates the Constitution.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Wasn't it Liberals screaming about seperation of church and state with Bush?
Click to expand...

Maybe you can tell us which Christian values the government should and shouldn't reflect in it's business. I am not suggesting a theocracy, there are values common to every faith on earth that seem to get left by the wayside when there is money to made. Should the government not reflect our collective desire to help the poor and the sick?
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Wasn't it Liberals screaming about seperation of church and state with Bush?
Click to expand...

A separation of Church and State means that the government and it's institution's cannot be used to endorse, promote, or compel adherence to religious beliefs.

It does not mean that the government's actions should not reflect the conscience and beliefs of the people it represents.

For example, I can't use the government to promote religious belief by having a government lead daily call to prayer. However, I can certainly say through my actions at the voting booth and and when I petition those that represent me that my government should pursue peace and justice in its dealings with other nations just like I should pursue peace and justice in my dealings with other individuals.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
A separation of Church and State means that the government and it's institution's cannot be used to endorse, promote, or compel adherence to religious beliefs.

It does not mean that the government's actions should not reflect the conscience and beliefs of the people it represents.

For example, I can't use the government to promote religious belief by having a government lead daily call to prayer. However, I can certainly say through my actions at the voting booth and and when I petition those that represent me that my government should pursue peace and justice in its dealings with other nations just like I should pursue peace and justice in my dealings with other individuals.
Click to expand...
I'm going to shut up and let you talk we keep saying the same thing only you say it so much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom