• 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
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.

Not necessarily.
 
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.

No, I said that you could justify taking the money, but it is forced confiscation.
 
Not necessarily.

So you don't have a social contract with your government? If you own a home and property, who recognizes the deed? Anyone that is born or immigrates to a nation that which one can emigrate from if they choose to, has effectively entered into a social contract with that nation's government just like if I go in and sit down at a bar and order a beer I have entered entered into an agreement that I will pay for that beer before I leave.
 
No, I said that you could justify taking the money, but it is forced confiscation.

Its not forced confiscation. By choosing to live in that state, community, or nation, you are bound by social contract which is legitimate so long as you have the ability to move out of that state, community, or nation if you wish to do so.

In this case, one of the stipulations of that social contract is that if a majority of the states residents votes to institute a 1/8 cent sales tax to fund state conservation programs, you are bound by that social contract to pay that tax when applicable so long as you choose to live in that state or purchase goods there. Civics 101 there.
 
Its not forced confiscation. By choosing to live in that state, community, or nation, you are bound by social contract which is legitimate so long as you have the ability to move out of that state, community, or nation if you wish to do so.

Yes it is forced. If it wasn't, then would be no need to have a tax man take it from you or vote on it, as people would do it themselves. The moving ption isn't viable for most people, and there's taxes everywhere anyway.

In this case, one of the stipulations of that social contract is that if a majority of the states residents votes to institute a 1/8 cent sales tax to fund state conservation programs, you are bound by that social contract to pay that tax when applicable so long as you choose to live in that state or purchase goods there. Civics 101 there.

And I never said that people shouldn't pay taxes
 
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?

Fallacy argument but no. Although it could be seen as such by some.

Income tax was never voted on by the people.
 
Last edited:
Income tax was never voted on by the people.

I've always wondered about this kind of reasoning.

As America is a Constitutional Republic, it serves as a representative democracy. Rather than people voting directly on issues themselves, they elect representatives to do so for them. So in respect, would not representatives voting on an issue be the equivalent of people voting on the issue? This whole, "will of the people" argument seems awfully fishy since the United States of America is not a democracy and the founding fathers of the country foresaw the danger in allowing the majority to rule over the rights of the various minorities. So why do people insist that things like income tax were not voted on "by the people" when they were voted on by the people who were elected by the people?
 
Last edited:
Based on my understanding of the bible, the Jesus character would not support 'charity' forced at gunpoint.
 
I've always wondered about this kind of reasoning.

As America is a Constitutional Republic, it serves as a representative democracy. Rather than people voting directly on issues themselves, they elect representatives to do so for them. So in respect, would not representatives voting on an issue be the equivalent of people voting on the issue? This whole, "will of the people" argument seems awfully fishy since the United States of America is not a democracy and the founding fathers of the country foresaw the danger in allowing the majority to rule over the rights of the various minorities. So why do people insist that things like income tax were not voted on "by the people" when they were voted on by the people who were elected by the people?

Unfortunately our representatives are more concerned with representing themselves rather than us the people. This is the problem.

So if our Representatives no longer represent us, what are we to do?

It's like the bail outs. The majority did not support the bailouts yet most in congress voted for them. Then they said they know what we need. Are we being represented here or bull ****ted? I think it is the later.

Comes a time when the people need to rise up and remind those in power who they serve.

PS: The people do vote directly on issues at a state and local level.
 
Last edited:
Monorail for Springfield!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live in Florida, so why would I care about a Monorail for Springfield?

Unless you are talking about the Simpsons???? :doh :lol:
 
Last edited:
So if our Representatives no longer represent us, what are we to do?

Elect representatives who will?

Comes a time when the people need to rise up and remind those in power who they serve.

By electing them out of office!

PS: The people do vote directly on issues at a state and local level.

Which is how the Constitution laid it out. Each state gets to decide how to run its own affairs.

However, that doesn't address my original question. Would not representatives voting on an issue be the equivalent of people voting on the issue? Even if they don't represent your particular view, they do represent the view of those who got them elected.
 
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.

Indeed the rituals and organisation are secondary, the morality is not. Moreover it is the foundation of all western morality, at least in writing. The ritual and organisation contributes little to western thinking. As such it remains ok for liberals to base their morals on their background of Christianity while still holding that church and state be separate.

The separation of organisation and morals is clear, useful and applicable.





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.

Thats your fundamental failing here, its not irrelevant. They are one and the same, jesus may have said render unto God, what is Gods etc etc, but that didnt mean he was letting Ceasar off the hook, or Pontius Pilot. This is more relevant now in a representative democracy where our vote contributes to decisions made.
As Southern Democrat has pointed out to quote him;
You see in scripture kings are told to be righteous and just as well
 
Yes it is forced. If it wasn't, then would be no need to have a tax man take it from you or vote on it, as people would do it themselves. The moving ption isn't viable for most people, and there's taxes everywhere anyway.



Its no more forced than any other contract that one enters into. In the case of the state, you are immediately protected and contracts you enter are held binding, that protects you and others, from birth.

If you dont want to live in a place where majority counts, and are contracts held binding there is always somalia. Bring your guns.

If you don't like that you can argue for only paying for the things you agree with.

And I never said that people shouldn't pay taxes

This highlights the immaturity of the right, they feel resentful over things such as taxes for road building because they dont want to accept the will of the majority, yet theyd happily expect others to accept that will of something they did agree with. Whatsmore they have no solution for making roads only used by those who wish to pay for them. Or defence, justice or anything else.
 
Last edited:
Elect representatives who will?

You act like the American voter is not apathetic and up to the job.

By electing them out of office!

Easier said than done.

Which is how the Constitution laid it out. Each state gets to decide how to run its own affairs.

Like that has been true since the civil war. :lol:

However, that doesn't address my original question. Would not representatives voting on an issue be the equivalent of people voting on the issue?

Back in the 1700's probably, but not now.

Even if they don't represent your particular view, they do represent the view of those who got them elected.

Not really. Look at GW Bush and tell me he represented those who put him in office. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Yes.
And if Congress enacts laws with the tenets of Christianity as their basis...

I just answered this, which tells me you're not paying attention.

Congress can do no such thing.

However, as long as the reasoning for the purely christian law is not in the text, it's all good.
 
Indeed the rituals and organisation are secondary, the morality is not. Moreover it is the foundation of all western morality, at least in writing. The ritual and organisation contributes little to western thinking. As such it remains ok for liberals to base their morals on their background of Christianity while still holding that church and state be separate.

The separation of organisation and morals is clear, useful and applicable.

Apparently only when referring to what liberalism wants to impose.

If you made this argument for any conservative attempt to do exactly the same, yes, there would be, and always is, a great hissy fit.




Thats your fundamental failing here, its not irrelevant. They are one and the same, jesus may have said render unto God, what is Gods etc etc, but that didnt mean he was letting Ceasar off the hook, or Pontius Pilot. This is more relevant now in a representative democracy where our vote contributes to decisions made.
As Southern Democrat has pointed out to quote him;

Yes, they would be on the hook as individuals.

Recall (if indeed you've had instruction in this) that Jesus taught that we should give up our Earthly trappings -- money, power, etc. -- "take up the cross," and go out and personally help people.
 
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.
I thought liberals were against the imposition of Christian morality upon society?

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.
No... Jesus would ask that you choose, for yourself, to provide charity to others. He would not ask that you force others to do so, as you already agreed.
 
So why would he want that when he could instead want you to vote for a system that automatically covers everyone?
Because, as has been noted, this is not charity borne of free will.
 
To the original WWJD question, as God in the flesh Jesus was also a carpenter by trade. At no point was he a political activist leading a political movement such as is being discussed here, and to assume that there were not political topics of the same magnitude at the time of his earthly ministry would be naive. They existed, and he ignored them, because he is concerned with the "Hearts of men" and his kingdom is "Not of this world." His heart was "Set on things eternal." He and he alone is worthy and capable of judging men.

If he were here today, given what we know, he might be traveling to speak to those who are hungry and thirsty for the truth. He might be admonishing and correcting those who are practicing error, and teaching us to focus on things of ETERNAL significance, rather than temporal, because soon it will pass away. He might very well heal some people as he traveled, but we should remember that he had the ability to simply speak and heal all people, he didn't. He healed those who came to him by faith, or in the case of the centurion were represented by great faith. He might speak to us as the petty, spoiled, self serving, petulant, demanding society we have become and pronounce judgment on us.

One thing we can be certain of is that whatever Jesus would do if he were here today in the flesh would glorify his Father, not the government.
 
One thing we can be certain of is that whatever Jesus would do if he were here today in the flesh would glorify his Father, not the government.

I don't think that can be argued against.
 
Can't believe all of you took the bait trying to measure moral behavior against socialist oppressive government. If I'm not mistaken all of the purely socialist regimes have ended up atheistic and at the extremes of oppression. For instance the National Socialist Party of Germany had universal health care but was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. Soviets purges, Fidel and Che purges etc., etc.. Does having universal health care mean you will become despotic? Maybe not (Britain), but it's sure a step in that direction. And Britain is now trying to dismantle following the example of the now freed communist (socialist) block countries like Poland and Hungary.

Jesus lived in a largely communal environment. It was when burgeoning, centralized, inefficient, wasteful and powerful governments intruded that everything fell apart.
 
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?

He gave 5,000 people free food. He didn't sell it to them. Obviously not a capitalist. Or at least not a very good one.
 
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.

:roll:

For the second time the problem was taxation without representation. At least present it in it's full context. Our side felt it was not represented in the British Parliament regardless of the fact that they had to pay the same taxes as Englishmen living in England. That is not the same as saying that we had a war over taxes. The grievance wasn't over the taxes. But over the lack of rights, benefits etc they felt was in some way guaranteed to them by paying taxes.

As far as you feeling like you are not being represented, I believe you should take it up with your congressman. I feel just fine with mine.

Hyperbole indeed.
 
Back
Top Bottom