• 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
Goobieman said:
In terms of Christian teachings, that is excatly correct, and is exacly why your position that Christian teachings support UHC is wrong.

Unless you can describe the error in my position, you will contine to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Well see that is the problem. I described what I believed was the error in your position. You described what you believe is the error in my position. Neither of us are seeing the merits in the others argument, thus we are at an impasse.

In terms of Christian teachings, some theologians would agree with you, others would disagree. After all, most of our safety nets that came about in the first half of the 20th Century originated with the Social Gospel Christian Movement so the argument I made is not exactly controversial within Christianity.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
It's taking by force. You can call it justified in some instances, but that's what it is
Click to expand...

Taxes in a republic are simply a fee for services. The voters either directly or indirectly place the responsibilities for certain services in the public sector, and the taxes are the fees for the public sector providing those services. One might disagree with whether or not those services belong in the public sector or the private sector, but it does not mean that the fees for them constitute theft.

It seems that you want to live in a complete anarchy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Well see that is the problem. I described what I believed was the error in your position. You described what you believe is the error in my position.
Click to expand...
Actually, no.
You stated your position.
I stated how it was wrong.
You re-stated your position. Again and again.
You have yet to tell me how -my- position is wrong.
 
Goobieman said:
Actually, no.
You stated your position.
I stated how it was wrong.
You re-stated your position. Again and again.
You have yet to tell me how -my- position is wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, I stated my position. You gave your opinion about how you believe its wrong. You stated your position and I stated in my opinion how I believe its wrong.

Now unless you are being divinely inspired in your writings in this thread, you have proven nothing, you have simply given your opinion just like I did. Some people will agree with me, others with you. That's how it works when you are discussing issues of ones personal religious beliefs and personal philosophy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually, I stated my position. You gave your opinion about how you believe its wrong. You stated your position and I stated in my opinion how I believe its wrong.
Click to expand...
Restating your position doesnt support your position or negate mine. That's all you've done.

Unless you can describe the error in my position, you will contine to be wrong.
 
Goobieman said:
Restating your position doesnt support your position or negate mine. That's all you've done.

Unless you can describe the error in my position, you will contine to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I stated the error in your position is that we don't live in a dictatorship so the action of individually going to the polls or town halls and establishing safetynets through the institutions of government is no different than any other actions we take.

You disagree with that. Certainly you see the difference in arguing actual events / policy, and the philosophy one bases their beliefs in.
 
winston53660 said:
There really is no right or wrong in a discussion like this.
Click to expand...
Sure there is.
An opinion - "I like ice cream" - cannot be wrong.
A position taken on a side of an issue - which is what we have here - can be.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I stated the error in your position is that we don't live in a dictatorship so the action of individually going to the polls or town halls and establishing safetynets through the institutions of government is no different than any other actions we take.
Click to expand...
That's not an error in my position as my position doesnt have anything to do with that. Non-sequitur.

So, we're back to you describing the error in my position, else you will contine to be wrong.
 
Laborers in the Vineyard

1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard.
2 And when he had agreed with the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the market place,
4 and said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.
5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.
6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?
7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.
8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
12 saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
After all, most of our safety nets that came about in the first half of the 20th Century originated with the Social Gospel Christian Movement so the argument I made is not exactly controversial within Christianity.
Click to expand...

I give you credit for being one of the few who will admit that modern liberalism stems from seeking to implement Christian tenets into law.
 
Blackdog said:
In certain circumstances it is most definitely. We had a little thing called the Revolutionary war over just that.

The only hyperbole here is your statement.
Click to expand...

We didn't have a war over taxation itself we had a war over among other things, what people considered to be taxation without representation. Do you feel that you are not being represented in our government? Do you not have politicians representing you and your neighbors in Congress?

Hyperbole indeed.
 
Harshaw said:
I give you credit for being one of the few who will admit that modern liberalism stems from seeking to implement Christian tenets into law.
Click to expand...
One must then ask how that gets past the Establishment clause.
 
Jerry said:
:prof The Establishment clause only applies to Congress.
It does not apply to the People.
Click to expand...
Yes.
And if Congress enacts laws with the tenets of Christianity as their basis...
 
Harshaw said:
I give you credit for being one of the few who will admit that modern liberalism stems from seeking to implement Christian tenets into law.
Click to expand...

No. Christian tenets say nothing about stealing from the rich to give power to the self-proclaimed elites....oh, wait, that's what liberalism aka socialism really is....liberalism is all about stealing to buy votes....damn, that's still just a description of the reality of liberalism and socialism...liberalism is the art of stealing to make one's feelings of guilt go away.

Jesus never really pushed that too much.

He was kinda against stealing and most sorts of dishonesty, actually.

Now, liberalism promotes it's agenda as a quasi-christian kind of thing, full of nice words about "charity" and "civic duty" and it redefines "sin" and "evil" (evil is the opposition to liberalism), but that's only the facade to please the stupid people. Underneath, it's got nothing to do with real charity, real forgiveness (the most vindictive people are the flaming libtards), and real honesty.

Just look at the lies they're using to push this healthcare scam of their Messiah if you want an example. Look at the way they're treating the citizens opposed to their "benevolent" agenda.
 
Some excellent comments so far.

re this nonsense of the establishment clause it is the morality of christianity that liberals seek to introduce to American society, not its customs and practices.

This tactic of trying to flip liberals opposition to church and state by using the example of liberals moral foundations is noted and easily dealt with. However congratulations on the attempt.

Someone, I think Goobieman, said that Jesus does not want charity to be forced. That is true. Jesus would not want to force charity. However, neither does he want suffering to continue. Nor does he approve of anyone standing by and watching it. Jesus was after all a champion of the excluded and the under-represented and the sick.

Thus Jesus would require that you vote for your own taxation for the purposes of helping your fellow man.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Christian tenets say nothing about stealing from the rich to give power to the self-proclaimed elites....oh, wait, that's what liberalism aka socialism really is....liberalism is all about stealing to buy votes....damn, that's still just a description of the reality of liberalism and socialism...liberalism is the art of stealing to make one's feelings of guilt go away.

Jesus never really pushed that too much.

He was kinda against stealing and most sorts of dishonesty, actually.

Now, liberalism promotes it's agenda as a quasi-christian kind of thing, full of nice words about "charity" and "civic duty" and it redefines "sin" and "evil" (evil is the opposition to liberalism), but that's only the facade to please the stupid people. Underneath, it's got nothing to do with real charity, real forgiveness (the most vindictive people are the flaming libtards), and real honesty.

Just look at the lies they're using to push this healthcare scam of their Messiah if you want an example. Look at the way they're treating the citizens opposed to their "benevolent" agenda.
Click to expand...

Liberalism is stealing? How does one steal from oneself?
 
creation said:
This tactic of trying to flip liberals opposition to church and state by using the example of liberals moral foundations is noted and easily dealt with.
Click to expand...

It's possible that it could be. It's possible that there's an easy refutation of it.

However, this:

it is the morality of christianity that liberals seek to introduce to American society, not its customs and practices.
Click to expand...

Is not it. Ask any pro-abortion supporter carrying a sign which says "Keep your Bible out of my womb."

:roll:



Thus Jesus would require that you vote for your own taxation for the purposes of helping your fellow man.
Click to expand...

No, he would expect you to take that money you'd pay in tax and put voluntarily toward the cause (and others). Have you not been reading?
 
Last edited:
To frame the question more accurately: which system, that is one that is privatized and largely market-based, versus a government-run system, is going to give the most benefit to the greatest number of people?

IMO private for-profit healthcare gives more benefit to more people, a higher standard of prompt care, therefore I would think private healthcare is the better choice from the standpoint of Christian compassion.

Anyway, the whole WWJD thing has been taken to ludicrous lengths in blatant attempts to shame Christians into doing what certain political intrests want them to do: what would Jesus drive, what would Jesus say about gun control, etc. It's a crock. Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world..." and largely resisted attempts by both followers and opponents to politicize his message. His message was the message of salvation, that the promised Messiah was at hand and the Kingdom of Heaven was come to the hearts of all who would believe.
 
creation said:
Liberalism is stealing? How does one steal from oneself?
Click to expand...

Don't be disingenuous. One aspect of Liberalism is taking from Group A and giving to Group B, also called wealth redistribution: a feature of "liberalism" (really, it is socialism, might as well call it the right name) for a couple of generations now.

If anyone but the government does that, it is called theft. See Robin Hood.



G.
 
Goshin said:
Anyway, the whole WWJD thing has been taken to ludicrous lengths in blatant attempts to shame Christians into doing what certain political intrests want them to do: what would Jesus drive, what would Jesus say about gun control, etc. It's a crock. Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world..." and largely resisted attempts by both followers and opponents to politicize his message. His message was the message of salvation, that the promised Messiah was at hand and the Kingdom of Heaven was come to the hearts of all who would believe.
Click to expand...

Abortion is murder.

Liberals are satanists.

Taxation is stealing.

Obama's healthcare plane is 'evil'.

Christians Evangelicals, one of the largest clearly right wing groups in this country, and many other Christian groups use their beliefs and religiously charged rhetoric on a constant basis to make everybody else see their points but you point out that Jesus might have been a socialist in the general sense of the word and all the sudden it's not cool. I mean from what I've read he was feeding poor people, helping sick people walk again, curing blind kids. All for nothing. You'd think the same people who constantly parade him around like the world's only bastion of goodness would be the first in line to be socialists instead of complaining about not being able to afford an extra hamburger a day.
 
Hatuey said:
Abortion is murder.

Liberals are satanists.

Taxation is stealing.

Obama's healthcare plane is 'evil'.

Christians Evangelicals, one of the largest clearly right wing groups in this country, and many other Christian groups use their beliefs and religiously charged rhetoric on a constant basis to make everybody else see their points but you point out that Jesus might have been a socialist in the general sense of the word and all the sudden it's not cool. I mean from what I've read he was feeding poor people, helping sick people walk again, curing blind kids. All for nothing. You'd think the same people who constantly parade him around like the world's only bastion of goodness would be the first in line to be socialists instead of complaining about not being able to afford an extra hamburger a day.
Click to expand...

No, Jesus was not a socialist, in any sense of the word. I mean, unless you can show me where he advocated collective ownership of the means of production?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom