Healthcare question for Christians

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...

Exactly, modern liberalism stems from seeking to implement Christian tenets into law while modern conservatism stems from seeking to implement historical religious oppression into law.

Harshaw said:

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

However, this:



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

:roll:

Click to expand...

I never said all of christian morality is intended to be introduced, as of course abortion poses a dilemma regarding both mothers and foetuses. There are indeed gaps in framework of liberal morality, these have only become apparent since the 50s.

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?

Click to expand...

I have been reading of course.

Indeed he would want that, as would we all, liberals, conservatives, Libertarians, communists. There are few non-devil worshipping people on the planet that would not want everyone of us to volunteer our funds.

But could he or anyone else be sure it would actually happen? No. Would he want us to take the risk? Obviously not, as we are on earth, not heaven.

So why would he want that when he could instead want you to vote for a system that automatically covers everyone?

Ethereal said:

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.

Click to expand...

That parable has nothing to do with the ownership of money. The only ownership it has to do with is your being owned by God. Instead, its basically telling you that you will have the same rewards in heaven regardless of whether you attain your salvation early in life and live a godly life or if you attain your salvation later in life after a lifetime of not doing the work of God.

Its teaching is about the equality of all the disciples in the reward of inheriting eternal life.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but that group voting for redistributing the wealth in legislation has historically not been the poorest but people of some means, as the political class in all eras has been well off. So in fact liberals have voted for their own funds to be taxed and re-distributed.

creation said:

Indeed, but that group voting for redistributing the wealth in legislation has historically not been the poorest but people of some means, as the political class in all eras has been well off. So in fact liberals have voted for their own funds to be taxed and re-distributed.

Click to expand...

I would also point out that most transfers of wealth occur between young to old, and between different areas.

creation said:

I never said all of christian morality is intended to be introduced, as of course abortion poses a dilemma regarding both mothers and foetuses. There are indeed gaps in framework of liberal morality, these have only become apparent since the 50s.

Click to expand...

You miss the point. It's not about liberal cherrypicking of which tenets they want to implement. It's about your distinction between implementing the "morality" and implementing (apparently) the forms and rituals. Christianity is about that morality, and the rituals are secondary.

I have been reading of course.

Indeed he would want that, as would we all, liberals, conservatives, Libertarians, communists. There are few non-devil worshipping people on the planet that would not want everyone of us to volunteer our funds.

But could he or anyone else be sure it would actually happen? No. Would he want us to take the risk? Obviously not, as we are on earth, not heaven.

So why would he want that when he could instead want you to vote for a system that automatically covers everyone?

Click to expand...

Several of us already said why. Go back and read.

There's a distinction between the heavenly, which is eternal, and the earthly, which is minuscule. Earthly governments are just that -- minuscule and meaningless. Completely irrelevant to your individual standing with God. Jesus spoke from God's point of view, not man's.

SouthernDemocrat said:

That parable has nothing to do with the ownership of money. The only ownership it has to do with is your being owned by God. Instead, its basically telling you that you will have the same rewards in heaven regardless of whether you attain your salvation early in life and live a godly life or if you attain your salvation later in life after a lifetime of not doing the work of God.

Click to expand...

The parables of Jesus are not one dimensional. Lessons can be extrapolated from sentences and phrases as well as the entirety of the parable.

He makes a specific case that you will receive what is right and that a man may do what he wishes with what he owns. The figurative value inherent to these statements does not contradict the literal message they convey.

Jesus did not advocate forced charity (UHC), indeed such a concept is in diametric opposition to the message of Christ and of “God”.

Jesus would have rejected any government confiscation of people’s goods in order to pay for other’s wants and needs. He would have implored individuals to be generous and giving of their own volition, not as a mere consequence of government force.

Its teaching is about the equality of all the disciples in the reward of inheriting eternal life.

Click to expand...

The overall lesson does nothing to detract from the small truths contained within.

I am analyzing the bricks and you are analyzing the building, both have value.

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...

Which is why I believe that the vast majority of "Christians" have very little understanding of what Jesus Christ was all about.

Let me try to summarize my beliefs on this subject the best I can. I am not saying that Christians have to or even necessarily should support a federal Universal Health care System. It's foolish to think that a Christian or anyone for that matter should have to from a moral perspective support a program that could very well be unworkable just because the intentions of it are good.

My personal opinion as to the various bills being debated in congress right now is that they do not do enough to curb costs, they don't address the major issue of personal responsibility for ones health, and being that we have some 300 million people in this country with tens of millions of uninsured and under-insured, I have my doubts about whether such an effort to insure the uninsured and better insure the under-insured could ever be effectively managed and thus would ultimately do anything to control spiraling costs.

What I am doing is actually addressing the larger issue, this compartmentalized Christianity that has been promoted by the religious right for the past 30 years. Basically, they selectively draw this line that exists no where in scripture between how you are called to act as an individual and how your government acts. I say selectively because they are quick to attempt to use the government to promote their religious beliefs. Such as their attempts to bring prayer back in school, religious beliefs into biology class, the entire same sex marriage issue and so on. Basically, anytime it suits their larger political ideology. However, because they are aligned with a political ideology far more than the Christian faith, they also will excuse injustices practiced by the government. The problem is, if you as an individual are not supposed to torture someone, then you should work to ensure that the government that you elect is not torturing people. If you the individual are supposed to be a good steward of creation, then you should work to ensure that the government you elect is one as well. If you the individual are supposed to seek peace and justice whenever possible, then you should work to ensure your government that you elect and that represents you does the same.

You see in scripture kings are told to be righteous and just as well. In a republic, every citizen is something of a king. So just like David and Solomon had to be wise, righteous, and just kings, every Christian voter has to be when going to the polls or the town halls as well.

Its very dangerous when people choose to compartmentalize their conscience when its politically expedient to their personal ideology.

Ethereal said:

The parables of Jesus are not one dimensional. Lessons can be extrapolated from sentences and phrases as well as the entirety of the parable.

He makes a specific case that you will receive what is right and that a man may do what he wishes with what he owns. The figurative value inherent to these statements does not contradict the literal message they convey.

Jesus did not advocate forced charity (UHC), indeed such a concept is in diametric opposition to the message of Christ and of “God”.

Click to expand...

You cannot just get what you want out of a parable, everything must be looked at in the context it was used in. In Christianity, God owns you, God can do what he wants with you. You ultimately own nothing, you are merely a tenant of God's creation.

People get what they want out of scripture all the time.

Take the whole "the poor will always be with you" line you hear all the time when people try to argue that is an excuse for doing nothing about the poor as if Jesus was saying there will always be poor people around and there is nothing you can do about it so just worry about me.

However, in context its obvious that's not what he meant at all. They were in the house of Simon the Leper. When Jesus said the poor will always be with you, but you will not always have me. He meant that his time with him was short, but as Christians who followed him, the poor would always be with them because his people would always be with the sick and the poor.

Jesus would have rejected any government confiscation of people’s goods in order to pay for other’s wants and needs. He would have implored individuals to be generous and giving of their own volition, not as a mere consequence of government force.

Click to expand...

Please point out in scripture where Jesus advocated not paying taxes. Do you honestly believe that Jesus was cool with taxing the people to enrich the Romans but would not have been cool with people of their own volition voting in a safetynet for the sick and the poor.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Let me try to summarize my beliefs on this subject the best I can. I am not saying that Christians have to or even necessarily should support a federal Universal Health care System. It's foolish to think that a Christian or anyone for that matter should have to from a moral perspective support a program that could very well be unworkable just because the intentions of it are good.

My personal opinion as to the various bills being debated in congress right now is that they do not do enough to curb costs, they don't address the major issue of personal responsibility for ones health, and being that we have some 300 million people in this country with tens of millions of uninsured and under-insured, I have my doubts about whether such an effort to insure the uninsured and better insure the under-insured could ever be effectively managed and thus would ultimately do anything to control spiraling costs.

What I am doing is actually addressing the larger issue, this compartmentalized Christianity that has been promoted by the religious right for the past 30 years. Basically, they selectively draw this line that exists no where in scripture between how you are called to act as an individual and how your government acts. I say selectively because they are quick to attempt to use the government to promote their religious beliefs. Such as their attempts to bring prayer back in school, religious beliefs into biology class, the entire same sex marriage issue and so on. Basically, anytime it suits their larger political ideology. However, because they are aligned with a political ideology far more than the Christian faith, they also will excuse injustices practiced by the government. The problem is, if you as an individual are not supposed to torture someone, then you should work to ensure that the government that you elect is not torturing people. If you the individual are supposed to be a good steward of creation, then you should work to ensure that the government you elect is one as well. If you the individual are supposed to seek peace and justice whenever possible, then you should work to ensure your government that you elect and that represents you does the same.

You see in scripture kings are told to be righteous and just as well. In a republic, every citizen is something of a king. So just like David and Solomon had to be wise, righteous, and just kings, every Christian voter has to be when going to the polls or the town halls as well.

Its very dangerous when people choose to compartmentalize their conscience when its politically expedient to their personal ideology.

Click to expand...

You're talking like a conservative, in case you didn't know. Personal responsibility is a conservative tenet.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Let me try to summarize my beliefs on this subject the best I can. I am not saying that Christians have to or even necessarily should support a federal Universal Health care System. It's foolish to think that a Christian or anyone for that matter should have to from a moral perspective support a program that could very well be unworkable just because the intentions of it are good.

My personal opinion as to the various bills being debated in congress right now is that they do not do enough to curb costs, they don't address the major issue of personal responsibility for ones health, and being that we have some 300 million people in this country with tens of millions of uninsured and under-insured, I have my doubts about whether such an effort to insure the uninsured and better insure the under-insured could ever be effectively managed and thus would ultimately do anything to control spiraling costs.

What I am doing is actually addressing the larger issue, this compartmentalized Christianity that has been promoted by the religious right for the past 30 years. Basically, they selectively draw this line that exists no where in scripture between how you are called to act as an individual and how your government acts. I say selectively because they are quick to attempt to use the government to promote their religious beliefs. Such as their attempts to bring prayer back in school, religious beliefs into biology class, the entire same sex marriage issue and so on. Basically, anytime it suits their larger political ideology. However, because they are aligned with a political ideology far more than the Christian faith, they also will excuse injustices practiced by the government. The problem is, if you as an individual are not supposed to torture someone, then you should work to ensure that the government that you elect is not torturing people. If you the individual are supposed to be a good steward of creation, then you should work to ensure that the government you elect is one as well. If you the individual are supposed to seek peace and justice whenever possible, then you should work to ensure your government that you elect and that represents you does the same.

You see in scripture kings are told to be righteous and just as well. In a republic, every citizen is something of a king. So just like David and Solomon had to be wise, righteous, and just kings, every Christian voter has to be when going to the polls or the town halls as well.

Its very dangerous when people choose to compartmentalize their conscience when its politically expedient to their personal ideology.

Click to expand...

While I don't agree with you on several specific points, that was nonetheless an excellent and well considered post.

Bassman said:

Not I, but the Word of G-d!

Click to expand...

Your interpretation of the "Word of G-d".

American said:

You're talking like a conservative, in case you didn't know. Personal responsibility is a conservative tenet.

Click to expand...

I don't mean personal responsibility as in "sorry your kid has cancer, but not my problem you are on your own".

Instead, I mean personal responsibility for your health in that we need to allow Medicare, Private Insurers and Employer Group Plans to charge you insurance rates based on the risk your lifestyle choices present. For example, if you are a bad driver and speed a lot, you will pay a higher auto insurance rate than a good driver. However, if you are a smoker or weigh 300 pounds, you will pay the same Medicare rate as a non-smoker that eats right and exercises regularly.

As it is right now, with Medicare and the vast majority of employer group plans, you pay the same rate regardless of whether you make good life choices regarding your health or bad life choices regarding your health. You can be obese and pay the same rate as a marathon runner. The problem with that is that the result is that people that make good life choices regarding their health subsidize the poor life choices of others. We will never get spiraling costs under control if we dont do something about that.

To expand on my disagreements with you SD, I think the line between individual actions and collective/gov't actions is indeed distinct.

I would not support the US government in attempting to actually force Christianity on anyone, because 1- faith is a choice, without choice it is merely forced hypocrisy... 2- it is not the business of the US government to mandate anyone's religious beliefs. That is a matter for religious organizations to seek to persuade individuals to believe, not for government.

If we allowed individuals to take vengeance for their self, after the fact, we'd run great risks of the punishments being excessive and of people being punished without reasonable proof of guilt. This has been seen during the frontier days with "vigiliance committees". With the government legal system, there is an accepted and relatively objective standard by which guilt is punished, rather than the emotionally-charged suspicions of the victim or victim's family; and a set of standard punishments, rather than the excessive punishments a grieving family might impose. I would refer to Romans 13, "The magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the revenger of evil, and the terror of the unrighteous."

Warfare, and our conduct during war, is a slightly trickier issue. Scripturally warfare appears to be justifiable under various circumstances, and there is an acknowlegement that when the "king" calls you to go to war, you go. If the "king" is wrong to go to war, it is the king's fault, not the fault of those who obey him according to the law of the land. When the soldiers who had converted asked Jesus what they should do, whether they should continue to be soldiers or desert being implied, he told them to be content with their pay (ie no robbery, no not-paying-the-inkeeper, no extortion) and to not "terrorize the people". From this I conclude that soldiering is an honorable and moral profession, as long as soldiers conduct themselves honorably and morally.

As citizens of a democratic Republic, we loan a measure of our sovereignty to our representatives though elections. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should exercise care to vote wisely and justly... as hard as that is sometimes given the choices we're stuck with. :mrgreen:

Jesus surely did not support the pagan and frequently-harsh or oppressive Roman government, yet he said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's due" when asked about taxes.

Caesar's word was the law of the land, at times the highest law from which there was no appeal. The equivalent in the USA is the Constitution. "I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that allows the legislature to use the public treasury for charity."

SouthernDemocrat said:

Instead, I mean personal responsibility for your health in that we need to allow Medicare, Private Insurers and Employer Group Plans to charge you insurance rates based on the risk your lifestyle choices present. For example, if you are a bad driver and speed a lot, you will pay a higher auto insurance rate than a good driver. However, if you are a smoker or weigh 300 pounds, you will pay the same Medicare rate as a non-smoker that eats right and exercises regularly.

As it is right now, with Medicare and the vast majority of employer group plans, you pay the same rate regardless of whether you make good life choices regarding your health or bad life choices regarding your health. You can be obese and pay the same rate as a marathon runner. The problem with that is that the result is that people that make good life choices regarding their health subsidize the poor life choices of others. We will never get spiraling costs under control if we dont do something about that.

Click to expand...

You make an excellent point, again. I would point out, however, that even relatively young champion athletes get cancer or other serious illness sometimes, such as that bicycle super-athlete, whatsisname. You know, the one that kept winning the big French race. Gah, I can't recall, I don't pay much attention to sports.

Goshin said:

You make an excellent point, again. I would point out, however, that even relatively young champion athletes get cancer or other serious illness sometimes, such as that bicycle super-athlete, whatsisname. You know, the one that kept winning the big French race. Gah, I can't recall, I don't pay much attention to sports.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, that's why everyone needs health insurance. One of our big problems in terms of out of control costs are the chronic and very expensive conditions large segments of the population end up with such as diabetes, emphysema, some forms of heart disease and so on that are basically self induced due to a lifetime smoking, not exercising, and not eating right. Everyone should be free to do to their bodies what they want, but why should others have to pay for the consequences of their poor choices. So if you want to eat fast food 5 times a day and balloon yourself up to 300 plus pounds, then fine, its your right to do so, but you should have to pay a higher insurance rate or medicare rate due to the higher costs of the inevitable health problems that will result. To me that makes a lot more sense than trying to tax fast food and donuts.

As it is, some one can take terrible care of themselves and the taxpayers pick up the tab once they turn 65 for the diabetes care and the knee replacements. Yet a single mother with breast cancer that loses her employer insurance has to be absolutely destitute before she can get any assistance. If you ask me that's a pretty screwed up system we have going and neither side is even remotely trying to address it.

Hatuey said:

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?

Click to expand...

Actually we did have a war that involved taxes. In fact initially taxes were not levied against the people, but companies doing buisness.

Yes I do, and I am not being represented as are allot of people.

Hatuey said:

Hyperbole indeed.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Goshin said:

"If a man shall not work, neither shall he eat."

Click to expand...

Does this apply to children?

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you."

Leviticus 25:35

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Luke 12:33

SouthernDemocrat said:

From a theological standpoint, we are not under a dictatorial Caesar. In a Republic, a government is owned by and thus is the collective arm of the people.

This whole notion of "compartmentalized Christianity" many on the religious right promote is an absolute heresy. There are hundreds if not thousands of versus in scripture on helping the poor and the sick. Lets look at these for example:

Deuteronomy 15:11

"There are always going to be poor and needy people among you. So I command you: Always be generous, open purse and hands, give to your neighbors in trouble, your poor and hurting neighbors."

Isaiah 1:17

"Learn to do good. Work for justice. Help the down(trodden)"

Proverbs 14:21

"It's criminal to ignore a neighbor in need, but compassion for the poor--what a blessing!"

Proverbs 14:31

"You insult your Maker when you exploit the powerless; when you're kind to the poor, you honor God."

Proverbs 21:13

"If you stop your ears to the cries of the poor, your cries will go unheard, unanswered."

Proverbs 31:9

"Speak out for justice! Stand up for the poor and destitute!"

And of course the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats:

Matthew 25:31-46

"31: "When he finally arrives, blazing in beauty and all his angels with him, the Son of Man will take his place on his glorious throne. 32: Then all the nations will be arranged before him and he will sort the people out, much as a shepherd sorts out sheep and goats, 33: putting sheep to his right and goats to his left. 34: "Then the King will say to those on his right, "Enter, you who are blessed by my Father! Take what's coming to you in this kingdom. It's been ready for you since the world's foundation. 35: And here's why: I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was homeless and you gave me a room, 36: I was shivering and you gave me clothes, I was sick and you stopped to visit, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37: "Then those "sheep' are going to say, "Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? 38 -39: And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?' 40: Then the King will say, "I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me--you did it to me.' 41: "Then he will turn to the "goats,' the ones on his left, and say, "Get out, worthless goats! You're good for nothing but the fires of hell. 42: And why? Because-- I was hungry and you gave me no meal, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43: I was homeless and you gave me no bed, I was shivering and you gave me no clothes, Sick and in prison, and you never visited.' 44: "Then those "goats' are going to say, "Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or homeless or shivering or sick or in prison and didn't help?' 45: "He will answer them, "I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you failed to do one of these things to someone who was being overlooked or ignored, that was me--you failed to do it to me.' 46: "Then those "goats' will be herded to their eternal doom, but the "sheep' to their eternal reward."

Scripture does not deal with some of your actions in some circumstances. There are no such limitations on helping the poor and the sick. Just like you cannot turn your back on them in person, you cannot turn your back on them at the voting booth either.

Now you might say that I think there is a better way we can collectively help the poor and the sick through government than the ways that are being proposed, and that's fine, but to argue that the commandments to help the poor and the sick that are found throughout scripture do not apply to you when you write your congressman or go to the voting booth is pure heresy.

Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with Government force?

Remember, Christian friend, GOD is the enforcement arm, not the Government.

creation said:

Thanks to the OP for an interesting thread.

Cain asked, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Gen. 4:9). Was Jesus Christ His brother’s keeper? Did Jesus take care of His brothers who were in need of clothes, food or shelter? Did He come to the aid of widows in distress? Was He a father to the orphan? Did He give to the poor (John 13:29)? Yes! Jesus was His brother’s keeper.

15. Am I my brother's keeper?

Obviously Jesus would give to the sick, nor would he be happy with anyone not giving to the sick.
Would he thus support taxation to this end? Even if this impeded freedom? Absolutely.
Jesus was not an advocate of freedom to do as thou wilt, but to do as God wants for his children, the practice of love.

Taxation by the government to give not to the sick rich who don't need it but to the sick poor who do is a perfect example of the love that Jesus preached - even if this impedes your freedom to spend that extra dollar how you wished and even if this government project never makes a dime in profit.

You all know this. Those who dont are simply twisting Jesus's message for their own ends.

You all know that at the end of your life when you stand before God, he will not be happy with you with holding your support on the basis that you only want to help out you and yours.

Moreover the claims about freedom are false, since as Jesus will point out to you at the end, you didnt mind being forced to pay for guns and bombs so how how can you be so strident against being forced to pay for another man's health?

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

From a theological standpoint, we are not under a dictatorial Caesar. In a Republic, a government is owned by and thus is the collective arm of the people.

This whole notion of "compartmentalized Christianity" many on the religious right promote is an absolute heresy. There are hundreds if not thousands of versus in scripture on helping the poor and the sick. Lets look at these for example:

Deuteronomy 15:11

"There are always going to be poor and needy people among you. So I command you: Always be generous, open purse and hands, give to your neighbors in trouble, your poor and hurting neighbors."

Isaiah 1:17

"Learn to do good. Work for justice. Help the down(trodden)"

Proverbs 14:21

"It's criminal to ignore a neighbor in need, but compassion for the poor--what a blessing!"

Proverbs 14:31

"You insult your Maker when you exploit the powerless; when you're kind to the poor, you honor God."

Proverbs 21:13

"If you stop your ears to the cries of the poor, your cries will go unheard, unanswered."

Proverbs 31:9

"Speak out for justice! Stand up for the poor and destitute!"

And of course the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats:

Matthew 25:31-46

"31: "When he finally arrives, blazing in beauty and all his angels with him, the Son of Man will take his place on his glorious throne. 32: Then all the nations will be arranged before him and he will sort the people out, much as a shepherd sorts out sheep and goats, 33: putting sheep to his right and goats to his left. 34: "Then the King will say to those on his right, "Enter, you who are blessed by my Father! Take what's coming to you in this kingdom. It's been ready for you since the world's foundation. 35: And here's why: I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was homeless and you gave me a room, 36: I was shivering and you gave me clothes, I was sick and you stopped to visit, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37: "Then those "sheep' are going to say, "Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? 38 -39: And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?' 40: Then the King will say, "I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me--you did it to me.' 41: "Then he will turn to the "goats,' the ones on his left, and say, "Get out, worthless goats! You're good for nothing but the fires of hell. 42: And why? Because-- I was hungry and you gave me no meal, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43: I was homeless and you gave me no bed, I was shivering and you gave me no clothes, Sick and in prison, and you never visited.' 44: "Then those "goats' are going to say, "Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or homeless or shivering or sick or in prison and didn't help?' 45: "He will answer them, "I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you failed to do one of these things to someone who was being overlooked or ignored, that was me--you failed to do it to me.' 46: "Then those "goats' will be herded to their eternal doom, but the "sheep' to their eternal reward."

Scripture does not deal with some of your actions in some circumstances. There are no such limitations on helping the poor and the sick. Just like you cannot turn your back on them in person, you cannot turn your back on them at the voting booth either.

Now you might say that I think there is a better way we can collectively help the poor and the sick through government than the ways that are being proposed, and that's fine, but to argue that the commandments to help the poor and the sick that are found throughout scripture do not apply to you when you write your congressman or go to the voting booth is pure heresy.

Click to expand...

Anjire said:

In Matthew 5:41, Jesus instructs, "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two."

Click to expand...

Layla_Z said:

Does this apply to children?

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you."

Leviticus 25:35

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Luke 12:33

Click to expand...

:roll:

Prooftext, prooftexting
A prooftext is a verse or short passage from the Bible used by someone as part of his proof for a doctrinal belief he wishes to substantiate to others. However, since verses and passages may rely extensively on the context in which they appear for correct interpretation, pulling these out of their context and having them stand alone in a "proof" can, at times, be very misleading. In addition, a set of such prooftexts can completely ignore other passages which, if added to the mix, might well lead to an entirely different conclusion. Someone who relies strongly only on a list of prooftexts in order to make a doctrinal argument may have a very weak case for his argument. Noting that a religious teacher relies heavily just on prooftexting is viewed in theological circles as a very negative evaluation. See: Hermeneutics definition.

Click to expand...

Carry on ...

Layla_Z said:

Does this apply to children?

Click to expand...

It would depend on who the child's parents are. :roll:

Layla_Z said:

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you."

Leviticus 25:35

Click to expand...

2 fallacy arguments do not a case make.

Layla_Z said:

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Luke 12:33

Click to expand...

This is voluntary, not forced.

3 strikes.

Blackdog said:

This is voluntary, not forced.

3 strikes.

Click to expand...

Let's say the state you live in puts on the ballot the an initiative for a 1/8 cent sales tax that will go towards expanding the state park system, leasing more land for hunters in the fall, expanding the state's trail system, purchasing more state conservation lands, and improving the states fish stocking program for lakes and streams.

The citizens of the state then go to the polls and vote the initiative in.

Does that 1/8 cent sales tax for state conservation programs constitute theft or forced confiscation?

SouthernDemocrat said:

Let's say the state you live in puts on the ballot the an initiative for a 1/8 cent sales tax that will go towards expanding the state park system, leasing more land for hunters in the fall, expanding the state's trail system, purchasing more state conservation lands, and improving the states fish stocking program for lakes and streams.

The citizens of the state then go to the polls and vote the initiative in.

Does that 1/8 cent sales tax for state conservation programs constitute theft or forced confiscation?

Click to expand...

While one could argue that what was done is justified, it's still forced confiscation

DrunkenAsparagus said:

While one could argue that what was done is justified, it's still forced confiscation

Click to expand...

You just illustrated the problem with unyielding extreme ideology - its completely anti-pragmatism. Basically, if a community paves a road, it seems by your reasoning the money used to fund the work was the result of theft.

There is not a nation anywhere on earth that functions without some form of taxation as fees for services the nation's government provides. A society implies a social contract.