• 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
creation said:
Sorry let me clarify. Jesus spoke against slave traders, was that not political?
Click to expand...

Please point to the scripture where he did this?

Other than that question it is just the same old at this point.

Trying to steal money be it through government or not is still stealing. Last time I looked it was a sin.
 
JohhnyMac said:
Based on what I know of the first century church, I believe Jesus would support (for lack of a better term) a local-controlled bartering system where neighbors would help neighbors on a very local level. No lawsuits. No administrative overhead. No red tape. Christ taught us to live for others and to put ourselves least. It's tough to imagine a world if everyone lived by that mindset.
Click to expand...

We would probably still be living like they did if everyone had that mindset.

I can honestly say he would not have been for it. Christianity was not set down as law for government. It was meant as a moral guide to our personal lives.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
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."
Click to expand...
I think too many people try to turn Jesus into some 60's era peace loving hippie. Jesus had a role to play in God's plan and he knew it, just as he knew others did as well. The crippled and sick were there to demonstrate the power of God, the Pharisees to demonstrate the fallacy of the levitical law to overcome sin, shed light on political corruption and arrogance of false wisdom. Jesus did not bring peace, but the truth which set the corrupt against innocent.
 
Blackdog said:
Please point to the scripture where he did this?

Other than that question it is just the same old at this point.

Trying to steal money be it through government or not is still stealing. Last time I looked it was a sin.
Click to expand...

Timothy 1:10

Government taxation is not stealing. Probably why its not mentioned in any part of the Torah or Bible as such.
 
creation said:
Timothy 1:10
Click to expand...

You note that it was about GOD's law, and not man's right?


Government taxation is not stealing. Probably why its not mentioned in any part of the Torah or Bible as such.
Click to expand...

Taxation is irrelevant to your obligation to God.
 
creation said:
Timothy 1:10

Government taxation is not stealing. Probably why its not mentioned in any part of the Torah or Bible as such.
Click to expand...

Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar. Jesus didn't seem to care much about government in what He was talking about, except for the Kingdom of God.
 
creation said:
It addresses what you said in the most direct terms.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that it is wrong...

I certainly do have standing to disagree, Biblical interpretation and the definition of life are that basis and are the start points of the debate on that basis, the basis is not that Christ was an apolitical phenomenon.
Click to expand...
The point you miss here is that your position is that "it is OK to force Christian morality on to others". After you say that, you have no way to argue against people that want to do it to you.

Of course, this is ALL removed from the fact that Jesus would not and did not advocate that His followers force His teachings on to those not willing to accept them.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
After you say that, you have no way to argue against people that want to do it to you.
Click to expand...

Correction -- you have no way to argue against it non-hypocritically.
 
Goobieman said:
Aside from the fact that it is wrong...


The point you miss here is that your position is that "it is OK to force Christian morality on to others". After you say that, you have no way to argue against people that want to do it to you.

Of course, this is ALL removed from the fact that Jesus would not and did not advocate that His followers force His teachings on to those not willing to accept them.
Click to expand...

Thanks but its not wrong.

Look, everyone has a morality, some believe it to be Christian inspired. Everyone agrees to a common morality, some like me believe the codification of that morality to be Christ inspired given the Judeo-Christian history of the USA and the UK and other places.

If you dont want morality forced on you, then you're far far too late. The law you live by defines that morality. Did you really think that the law exists only to organise people efficiently and did not come out of a moral framework?

I have a few ways to argue against people that want to force it on to me. However, if they were to form a majority of voters I would have to accept it or leave.
 
creation said:
Thanks but its not wrong.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it is. Contrary to your claim, and rather than Christian morality, our laws are based on the tenet that we all have rights and that the government is there to protect those rights.

If you dont want morality forced on you, then you're far far too late.
Click to expand...
I expect you to accept that response when someone forces their morality on to you. In reality, I expect youl squeal like a pig.


Of course, this is ALL removed from the fact that Jesus would not and did not advocate that His followers force His teachings on to those not willing to accept them.
 
creation said:
Thanks but its not wrong.

Look, everyone has a morality, some believe it to be Christian inspired. Everyone agrees to a common morality, some like me believe the codification of that morality to be Christ inspired given the Judeo-Christian history of the USA and the UK and other places.

If you dont want morality forced on you, then you're far far too late. The law you live by defines that morality. Did you really think that the law exists only to organise people efficiently and did not come out of a moral framework?

I have a few ways to argue against people that want to force it on to me. However, if they were to form a majority of voters I would have to accept it or leave.
Click to expand...

You're essentially saying that our morality should not stop at negative law, whereby we tell people what they cannot do. What you want is for our morality to go into positive, whereby you tell people what they have to do. Negative law is essential in that it protects our rights, but positive law, I'm not buying it.
 
phattonez said:
You're essentially saying that our morality should not stop at negative law, whereby we tell people what they cannot do. What you want is for our morality to go into positive, whereby you tell people what they have to do. Negative law is essential in that it protects our rights, but positive law, I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...
What he's REALLY trying to say is that a theocracy is OK, so long as its HIS interpretation of Christianity that is forced on everyone.
 
phattonez said:
You're essentially saying that our morality should not stop at negative law, whereby we tell people what they cannot do. What you want is for our morality to go into positive, whereby you tell people what they have to do. Negative law is essential in that it protects our rights, but positive law, I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...

Of course! Our moral framework describes not only what we mustnt do but what we must.
The constitution, in the paying of taxes, is a positive enforcement. You may argue that this should be restricted severely but thats another point.

Love thy neighbour is an example of positive morality. Dont want to buy that?
 
Goobieman said:
What he's REALLY trying to say is that a theocracy is OK, so long as its HIS interpretation of Christianity that is forced on everyone.
Click to expand...

Im saying its too late to have it any other way, the current laws you live under where put in place before you were born.
 
creation said:
Im saying its too late to have it any other way, the current laws you live under where put in place before you were born.
Click to expand...
Contrary to your claim, and rather than Christian morality, (most of) our laws are based on the tenet that we all have rights and that the government is there to protect those rights.

So, again, I expect you to accept that response when someone forces their morality on to you.

And, again, this is ALL removed from the fact that Jesus would not and did not advocate that His followers force His teachings on to those not willing to accept them
 
creation said:
Love thy neighbour is an example of positive morality. Dont want to buy that?
Click to expand...

It's a moral imperative, but who of us is so blameless as to punish those who don't follow God's law?
 
creation said:
Timothy 1:10
Click to expand...

Not unless you are going by a bad translation...

Most recent translation from 2008...

"for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching"

Kidnappers are probably slave traders but not all slave traders then were kidnappers.

Funny how this applys don't you think?

"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

6From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

Interesting indeed.

creation said:
Government taxation is not stealing. Probably why its not mentioned in any part of the Torah or Bible as such.
Click to expand...

It is stealing when the money is taken by force and given to another, period.

Stealing: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
 
Blackdog said:
Not unless you are going by a bad translation...

Most recent translation from 2008...

"for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching"

Kidnappers are probably slave traders but not all slave traders then were kidnappers.

Funny how this applys don't you think?
Click to expand...

Here are a number of versions; I tend to look to the King James version, but there are quite a few others that back up my point.


New International Version (©1984)
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

International Standard Version (©2008)
for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings.

King James Bible
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

American King James Version
For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for enslavers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

American Standard Version
for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

Bible in Basic English
For those who go after loose women, for those with unnatural desires, for those who take men prisoners, who make false statements and false oaths, and those who do any other things against the right teaching,

Douay-Rheims Bible
For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

Darby Bible Translation
fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,

English Revised Version
for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

Webster's Bible Translation
For lewd persons, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,

Weymouth New Testament
fornicators, sodomites, slave-dealers, liars and false witnesses; and for whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching

World English Bible
for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

Young's Literal Translation
whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse,

1 Timothy 1:10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine


"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

6From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"
Click to expand...

Youre right, its interesting stuff, and clear that Jesus was not apolitical.



It is stealing when the money is taken by force and given to another, period.

Stealing: To take (the property of another) without right or permission
Click to expand...

The right is given in law. Try getting a judge to condemn the government for stealing its tax take.
 
phattonez said:
It's a moral imperative, but who of us is so blameless as to punish those who don't follow God's law?
Click to expand...

No need, to punish. However it can guide our decisions on how to run the country.
 
I thought that the Bible said that sinners will stand judgement only before God. I also thought that liberals here said that they wanted seperation of church and state. For 8 years liberals complained about Bush and the Republicans trying to force family (Christian) values on us. They said that the government has no place in morality. It's a private matter. They're right, but now some of them are trying to use Biblical scripture to justify this boondoggle. Why am I not shocked?
 
creation said:
It addresses what you said in the most direct terms. I certainly do have standing to disagree, Biblical interpretation and the definition of life are that basis and are the start points of the debate on that basis, the basis is not that Christ was an apolitical phenomenon.

The only question is how far should it go? Helping your fellow man and proscribing murder or should it reach right into the bedroom to adultery? As it is morality, Christian morality, extends into most areas of life to some degree - that's why prostitution remains an uneasy gambit where the law in concerned.
Click to expand...

For a Christian the definition of life should be based on these two verses,
Mt 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mt 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Click to expand...
And
Mt 22:37 * Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mt 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like unto it , Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Click to expand...

Christian morality should not go any farther than the church itself. It is the Believer that has agreed to be bound to the higher standards of NT law under Christ not the world. It is a covenant agreement between God and the believer. We are supposed to be witnesses for Christ. Not enforcers for Christ.

1pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

We are supposed to be a higher form of society existing within a lesser form of society. We are not supposed to impose burdens on others but be willing to bare burdens ourselves.

Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mt 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

How can any Christian think that a secular society will not fight tooth and nail against Christians trying to enforce biblical laws and conduct on them? If God does not violate their freewill to live their secular lives then what makes a believer think that the church has the authority to do so?

We constantly teach in our churches that we are called to emulate Christ and develop the Christ like character. Part of the character of Christ is the calling of the suffering servant. Rather than emulate Christ to many of us would rather emulate Peter.

Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear . The servant's name was Malchus.
Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Apparently many of us would rather say while sharpening our blades for the next attack no thanks I am not thirsty.

As to apolitical Christ was 100% apolitical. To use his render unto Ceaser as a statement that he supported taxes is an error. If Ceaser would have wanted a 100% tax then as far as Jesus was concerned he could have it all. He was not here to save money and garner wealth and property. He was here to spread the gospel of the kingdom.

Even if all US Christians unite as a solid voice of one against the health bill and it is defeated you may be able to pat yourselves on the back for sparing your own wealth but you have not done one thing to further the cause of Christ.

Moe
 
creation said:
No need, to punish. However it can guide our decisions on how to run the country.
Click to expand...

If it's not punishable then it's not a law. Remember what Jesus said during the Sermon on the Mount

Jesus the Christ said:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Click to expand...

We have no right to complain about others not giving unless we ourselves give, and nowhere there did Jesus mention forcing others to give.
 
creation said:
Here are a number of versions; I tend to look to the King James version, but there are quite a few others that back up my point.
Click to expand...

And compair the dates...

The latest translations (as in 2008) do not say slavers. Sorry. :roll:

creation said:
Youre right, its interesting stuff, and clear that Jesus was not apolitical.
Click to expand...

Yea just like the most recent translation. :roll:

Please dude get real.

creation said:
The right is given in law. Try getting a judge to condemn the government for stealing its tax take.
Click to expand...

When they take it by force to give to someone else it is. It is not charity at that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom