• 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
angrycarpenter said:
Maybe you can tell us which Christian values the government should and shouldn't reflect in it's business.
Click to expand...
The conversation here revolves around the idea that Christians should force their teachings on others by supporting UHC.

When Christians try to force their teachings on others by supporting laws that deny same-sex marriages, there's a big stink.

Can't have it both ways.
 
angrycarpenter said:
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?
Click to expand...

What religion teaches robbing Peter to pay Paul
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
So people choose to pay taxes?
Click to expand...

In a representative democracy, they do indeed collectively choose to pay taxes. If the majority of the individuals in a society decide that they should not pay taxes, then they can petition their government and elect representatives that share their views. Its why some states have state income taxes and others do not for example.
 
angrycarpenter said:
Should the government not reflect our collective desire to help the poor and the sick?
Click to expand...

Yes it should.

That is, providing that the collective desire IS to help the poor and sick.

But there seems to be a rather large "sticking point" on the issue...
 
Gwendoline said:
Yes it should.

That is, providing that the collective desire IS to help the poor and sick.

But there seems to be a rather large "sticking point" on the issue...
Click to expand...

And I'd like to add not all that want help the poor and sick are religious.
 
If that's our collective desire, that's one thing. That's not the same as we should do it, because you think Jesus wants you to
 
Gwendoline said:
Yes it should.
That is, providing that the collective desire IS to help the poor and sick.
But there seems to be a rather large "sticking point" on the issue...
Click to expand...
That forcing others to follow the tenets of Christianity isnt a tenet of Christianity, and doing so violates the secular nature of our government?

Yes. And those points arent minor.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand the concept you use of feeling "forced".

And I'm still left wondering why it doesn't come natural to want to help others... and why anyone would feel forced... by helping others... which is the rather "benevolent" and "kind" thing to do. Doesn't that come naturally to Christians? Or God, am I that naive and altruistic about Christians...
 
Gwendoline said:
I still don't understand the concept you use of feeling "forced".
Click to expand...

It's not difficult.

Someone doesn't want to help others.

Yet, that person is taxed -- by force -- and the money put to help others. Not a choice that person would have made.


And I'm still left wondering why it doesn't come natural to want to help others... and why anyone would feel forced... by helping others... which is the rather "benevolent" and "kind" thing to do. Doesn't that come naturally to Christians? Or God, am I that naive and altruistic about Christians...
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter why the person doesn't want to help. That person is still being forced to do so.
 
Gwendoline said:
I still don't understand the concept you use of feeling "forced".
Click to expand...

I give to charity and help the poor. My wife works for an international Christian aid organization as well.

Now please explain why I should be forced to pay for someone else's health care when I already give to charity?

That is the difference.

Gwendoline said:
And I'm still left wondering why it doesn't come natural to want to help others... and why anyone would feel forced... by helping others... which is the rather "benevolent" and "kind" thing to do. Doesn't that come naturally to Christians? Or God, am I that naive and altruistic about Christians...
Click to expand...

You mite as well ask why do people do evil things in general.

Nothing comes naturally to Christians that would not come naturally to anyone else. Just because we get saved we do not become Christian robots. We are still the same people we always were.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I give to charity and help the poor. My wife works for a international Christian aid organization as well.

Now please explain why I should be forced to pay for someone else's health care when I already give to charity?

That is the difference.
Click to expand...
That's another facet of the same point -- under UHC, those who already choose to give to the sick and the poor will be forced to give more.
 
As for the opening post . . .

Jesus expected people to help others.

Jesus forced no one to do so, nor did he advocate it.

Jesus had no interest in governments. You should do what's right because it's right. Government was irrelevant. Politics were irrelevant. It's about your individual relationship with God.

And my understanding of Christian tenets leads me to believe your soul and your salvation are about your individual acts of faith and goodness, not collective ones.
 
Harshaw said:
As for the opening posts . . .

Jesus expected people to help others.

Jesus forced no one to do so, nor did he advocate it.

Jesus had no interest in governments. You should do what's right because it's right. Government was irrelevant.

And my understanding of Christian tenets leads me to believe your soul and your salvation are about your individual acts of faith and goodness, not collective ones.
Click to expand...
All points previously made, and all correct.
:2wave:
 
I am going to take another tack. The question was what WWJD not how should current dogma be applied to this situation. Christianity has been twisted to support practically any atrocity or terribly unfair policy. Had the question been what do Christians think about UHC it would warrant all of these different opinions but the question was What would Jesus do? Can anyone seriously tell us that Jesus would bitch about the financial cost of healing the sick? Had the Romans set up free hospitals to give the general populace medical treatment would he have opposed such a move? Can anyone tell me that Jesus would have sided with an insurance company executive on anything?
 
angrycarpenter said:
I am going to take another tack. The question was what WWJD not how should current dogma be applied to this situation. Christianity has been twisted to support practically any atrocity or terribly unfair policy. Had the question been what do Christians think about UHC it would warrant all of these different opinions but the question was What would Jesus do? Can anyone seriously tell us that Jesus would bitch about the financial cost of healing the sick? Had the Romans set up free hospitals to give the general populace medical treatment would he have opposed such a move? Can anyone tell me that Jesus would have sided with an insurance company executive on anything?
Click to expand...

Here is your problem...

Jesus never got involved in Roman politics, ever. He would not be for or against. He would tell you to worry about your soul and leave it at that. :roll:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
In a representative democracy, they do indeed collectively choose to pay taxes. If the majority of the individuals in a society decide that they should not pay taxes, then they can petition their government and elect representatives that share their views. Its why some states have state income taxes and others do not for example.
Click to expand...

Willie Nelson would beg to differ
 
angrycarpenter said:
Had the Romans set up free hospitals to give the general populace medical treatment would he have opposed such a move? Can anyone tell me that Jesus would have sided with an insurance company executive on anything?
Click to expand...

See my post above.

He wouldn't have opposed it, but he wouldn't have advocated it, either. He would have found it morally irrelevant. It entirely about what you do as an individual, not as a group. And I would think, given my understanding of Jesus's teachings, that if you advocate for something like UHC but never do anything individually to help people, you've done little of moral value.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Willie Nelson would beg to differ
Click to expand...

Well if Willie Nelson does not believe that he should pay taxes, then all all Willie Nelson must do is convince enough of his peers to get the income tax revoked.

Your ability to petition your government and elect representatives to represent your needs, wants, and values in your government is an example of a positive right that is inherent to any free society.
 
angrycarpenter said:
I am going to take another tack. The question was what WWJD not how should current dogma be applied to this situation.
Click to expand...
Interesting how you try to marginalize the necessity of acting under your own free will as "current dogma" that's been "twisted to support practically any [policy]", while at the same time tring to twist the basic tenets of Christianty to support -your- political and ideiological policies...

but the question was What would Jesus do?
Click to expand...
Yes. This has been asnwered.

Forcing people to conform to the teents of Christianity is not a tenet of Christianity. As such, He would argue that you should freely give to the sick and the poor, but you should not force or try to force others to do so.

Not sure how that can be more plain.
 
Goobieman said:
Interesting how you try to marginalize the necessity of acting under your own free will as "current dogma" that's been "twisted to support practically any [policy]", while at the same time tring to twist the basic tenets of Christianty to support -your- political and ideiological policies...


Yes. This has been asnwered.

Forcing people to conform to the teents of Christianity is not a tenet of Christianity. As such, He would argue that you should freely give to the sick and the poor, but you should not force or try to force others to do so.

Not sure how that can be more plain.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. :agree
 
Harshaw said:
See my post above.

He wouldn't have opposed it, but he wouldn't have advocated it, either. He would have found it morally irrelevant. It entirely about what you do as an individual, not as a group. And I would think, given my understanding of Jesus's teachings, that if you advocate for something like UHC but never do anything individually to help people, you've done little of moral value.
Click to expand...

Jesus would of course be supportive of health care for everyone. You can't read the gospels and not come to that conclusion. Whether this was accomplished through charitable institutions or government institutions would be irrelevant, but Christian individuals through their actions regardless of whether its in their homes, individual communities, state, or nation are commanded to pursue justice and compassion and that includes your actions in the voting booth and town hall.

You cant say that the government that you elect and that represents you and your values should be held to a different standard than you are. That's not how it works, there is no such compartmentalization in terms of the fruits of mans actions and efforts in Christianity. Unless you live in a totalitarian dictatorship as was the case under Cesar, Christians have to pursue the same values in the voting booth that they do in every other aspect of their lives.
 
Last edited:
How many times does this have to be explained? There is a differance between forcing someone else to help others and helping others yourself. Christian virtue is about people doing good at their own free will, not being coerced.
 
Blackdog said:
I give to charity and help the poor. My wife works for an international Christian aid organization as well.

Now please explain why I should be forced to pay for someone else's health care when I already give to charity?

That is the difference.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm starting to understand how a lot of you don't like the concept of being forced.

But you have to appreciate and understand that others don't see it that way... and that others are prepared to go into it "willingly".

I would be one of the willing. I wouldn't feel "forced" in any way, because I believe in UHC and would like to see / to know that less people in the world are needlessly suffering...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom