• 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
SouthernDemocrat said:
Jesus would of course be supportive of health care for everyone.
Click to expand...
In the context of everyone providing it to those that need it from their own free witll, yes.

But, that doesnt describe UHC, and so its imposible to argue that He would support it.

Unless, of course, you can show that Jesus supported the idea that people should force others to abide by the tenets of His teachings.
 
Goobieman said:
The conversation here revolves around the idea that Christians should force their teachings on others by supporting UHC.

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

Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Jesus didn't even come close to saying anything about same-sex marriage. In fact, most of his teachings could easily be interpreted to show that he would have supported it.
 
Gwendoline said:
Okay, I'm starting to understand how a lot of you don't like the concept of being forced.

But you have to appreciate and understand that others don't see it that way... and that others are prepared to go into it "willingly".
Click to expand...
So let them. No one keeps you or anyone else from providing their own charity to others. But don't think that you can use the teaching of Jesus as an argument for forcing YOUR choice onto others.
 
disneydude said:
Jesus didn't even come close to saying anything about same-sex marriage. In fact, most of his teachings could easily be interpreted to show that he would have supported it.
Click to expand...
Boy... talk about missing the point.
Did you do that on purpose?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Jesus would of course be supportive of health care for everyone. You can't read the gospels and not come to that conclusion. Whether this was accomplished through charitable institutions or government institutions would be irrelevant, but Christian individuals through their actions regardless of whether its in their homes, individual communities, state, or nation are commanded to pursue justice and compassion and that includes your actions in the voting booth and town hall.
Click to expand...

If people come together to help other people voluntarily, then they are all individuals making individual decisions.

If people are required by law to come together and help other people, there's no moral value there.


You cant say that the government that you elect and that represents you and your values should be held to a different standard than you are.
Click to expand...

Not sure what that means. How did I do this?


That's not how it works, there is no such compartmentalization in terms of the fruits of mans actions and efforts in Christianity.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. If all you do is vote to create a UHC system, yet never do anything personally to help anyone, you've done nothing, and in fact you've participated in a system which forces others to do what you consider moral whether they want to or not.

Jesus had no interest in any such forced morality. Jesus had no interest in governments. As I said, government, politics, and petty earthly concerns of power allocation meant nothing.

It's entirely about what you do as an individual that matters to God. It's your soul and your soul alone which is judged.


Unless you live in a totalitarian dictatorship as was the case under Cesar, Christians have to pursue the same values in the voting booth that they do in every other aspect of their lives.
Click to expand...

So?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Jesus would of course be supportive of health care for everyone.
Click to expand...

Please point out the scriptures that point to his supporting of universal health care?

SouthernDemocrat said:
You can't read the gospels and not come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes you can, and most learned biblical scholars will tell you the same.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Whether this was accomplished through charitable institutions or government institutions would be irrelevant, but Christian individuals through their actions regardless of whether its in their homes, individual communities, state, or nation are commanded to pursue justice and compassion and that includes your actions in the voting booth and town hall.
Click to expand...

Not really. We are to act according to and abide by the laws of our state etc. The teachings of Jesus was for our own personal moral compass, not one to run a government on.

SouthernDemocrat said:
You cant say that the government that you elect and that represents you and your values should be held to a different standard than you are. That's not how it works, there is no such compartmentalization in terms of the fruits of mans actions and efforts in Christianity.
Click to expand...

Bunk. I did not vote for the people in power. So I guess this means I can just ignore your flawed logic?

SouthernDemocrat said:
Unless you live in a totalitarian dictatorship as was the case under Cesar, Christians have to pursue the same values in the voting booth that they do in every other aspect of their lives.
Click to expand...

Yes they do but that has little to do with UHC. In fact it has nothing to do with it as I have shown.

It is funny and Goshin has already mentioned it. If Christians were rallying around no same sex marriage you probably would be saying the exact opposite. :spin:
 
Blackdog said:
Here is your problem...

Jesus never got involved in Roman politics, ever. He would not be for or against. He would tell you to worry about your soul and leave it at that. :roll:
Click to expand...

Why did Jesus send his apostles out into the world? Did he tell them to not worry about others, just take care of yourself? No he sent them out to spread a message of love for your fellow man and to heal the sick in his name. Was the purpose of this evangelism simply to spread a religion? No it was an attempt to make the world a better place through brotherhood and selfless acts. He also told them that if a town just didn't want to hear it, if they were so devoted to their worldly goods that the message fell on deaf ears to leave and beat the dust of that place off of their shoes at the edge of town. That is what I am about to do to this thread. I am the only one here that has opened my bible and pointed to the answer and no one wants to hear it so I leave this thread to the ones who love their stuff far more than they love their brothers and sisters.
 
disneydude said:
Jesus didn't even come close to saying anything about same-sex marriage. In fact, most of his teachings could easily be interpreted to show that he would have supported it.
Click to expand...

But Paul did and was very clear. :roll:

Nice missing the entire point and trying to derail the thread.
 
Gwendoline said:
Okay, I'm starting to understand how a lot of you don't like the concept of being forced.

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

I would be one of the willing. I wouldn't feel "forced" in any way, because I believe in UHC and would like to see / to know that less people in the world are needlessly suffering...
Click to expand...

So, all you willing folks should find each other and go to town. I'll even help, and in fact, I do.

But if you're forcing others to participate who are unwilling, you're just imposing your own will on them.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
How many times does this have to be explained? There is a differance between forcing someone else to help others and helping others yourself. Christian virtue is about people doing good at their own free will, not being coerced.
Click to expand...

How many times does it have to be explained that if you live in the United States, you don't live under a totalitarian dictatorship. Your government, whether its the local, state, or federal government is simply an institution created by the people that ultimately acts on behalf of the wishes of the people. You have a voice at the voting booth and when you petition your government. That voice has to ultimately reflect your values just like every other action in your life ultimately reflects your values.

Ultimately are laws are not edicts handed down from a dictator. They are the collective products of each and everyone of us. Now I am not arguing for or against a government provided Universal Health care System. I am merely pointing out that as a Christian you cannot just say that the government that I elect and that represents me does not have to pursue justice and compassion because that government ultimately is a reflection of all of us.

So you might say, hey, everyone should have health care if they need it, I just don't believe its something that the federal government can accomplish the way they are trying to accomplish it. Otherwise, I don't think that 300 million of us can collectively accomplish this goal through that institution. That is a perfectly valid position to hold as a Christian. However, you cannot say, my Christian values only narrowly apply to the actions that I personally deem as my individual actions, and not my actions as it relates to the government institutions I ultimately choose to represent me and act on my behalf.
 
Last edited:
angrycarpenter said:
Why did Jesus send his apostles out into the world? Did he tell them to not worry about others, just take care of yourself? No he sent them out to spread a message of love for your fellow man and to heal the sick in his name. Was the purpose of this evangelism simply to spread a religion? No it was an attempt to make the world a better place through brotherhood and selfless acts. He also told them that if a town just didn't want to hear it, if they were so devoted to their worldly goods that the message fell on deaf ears to leave and beat the dust of that place off of their shoes at the edge of town. That is what I am about to do to this thread. I am the only one here that has opened my bible and pointed to the answer and no one wants to hear it so I leave this thread to the ones who love their stuff far more than they love their brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...

And what part of that supports the idea of forcing everyone to do what Jesus taught?
 
angrycarpenter said:
Why did Jesus send his apostles out into the world?
Click to expand...
To spread His word.
Among other things, to teach that people should, of their own free will, give to the sick and the poor.

I'm not at all sure why you havn't gotten this by now.

No it was an attempt to make the world a better place through brotherhood and selfless acts
Click to expand...
There you go. Case closed.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
How many times does it have to be explained that if you live in the United States, you don't live under a totalitarian dictatorship. Your government, whether its the local, state, or federal government is simply an institution created by the people that ultimately acts on behalf of the wishes of the people. You have a voice at the voting booth and when you petition your government. That voice has to ultimately reflect your values just like every other action in your life ultimately reflects your values.
Click to expand...

A free society is about choosing your own path, free of being coerced by others to follow THEIR path.

You're saying that Christians should vote to force others to follow the Christian path.

That's anti-freedom, and it's bad theology to boot. Christianity is not about force.
 
angrycarpenter said:
Why did Jesus send his apostles out into the world? Did he tell them to not worry about others, just take care of yourself? No he sent them out to spread a message of love for your fellow man and to heal the sick in his name.
Click to expand...

Exactly. To go out and teach love and heal the sick in HIS name, not Obama's name or anyone else.

As soon as I see President Obama out there laying hands and healing people I will change my tune.

angrycarpenter said:
Was the purpose of this evangelism simply to spread a religion? No it was an attempt to make the world a better place through brotherhood and selfless acts.
Click to expand...

Personal selfless acts. Not redistributed wealth or forced by the government.

angrycarpenter said:
He also told them that if a town just didn't want to hear it, if they were so devoted to their worldly goods that the message fell on deaf ears to leave and beat the dust of that place off of their shoes at the edge of town. That is what I am about to do to this thread. I am the only one here that has opened my bible and pointed to the answer and no one wants to hear it so I leave this thread to the ones who love their stuff far more than they love their brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...

Luke 18:9"And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others"

Sounds like you mite want to crack your Bible a little more.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
A free society is about choosing your own path, free of being coerced by others to follow THEIR path.

You're saying that Christians should vote to force others to follow the Christian path.

That's anti-freedom, and it's bad theology to boot. Christianity is not about force.
Click to expand...

No, I am not saying that you should vote to compel adherence to your moral beliefs. For example, you can't force someone not to lie or not to sleep around on their spouse. Those are choices that they have to make.

However, at the same time you are also to pursue compassion and justice in your actions. You do this in your individual actions, in your communities, and in the voting booth. As I stated earlier, you cannot use the government to endorse, promote, or compel adherence to your specific religious beliefs. However, your actions in the voting booth and at the town hall can and should be reflective of your beliefs and conscience.

For example, in a representative democracy, if your government that represents and and that you elect was engaging in genocide, you could not say that well the bible only talks about what I do individually and my voting and my petitioning of my government is excluded from that. That is just not how it works. We are all to pursue justice and compassion in all of our actions.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
How many times does it have to be explained that if you live in the United States, you don't live under a totalitarian dictatorship. Your government, whether its the local, state, or federal government is simply an institution created by the people that ultimately acts on behalf of the wishes of the people. You have a voice at the voting booth and when you petition your government. That voice has to ultimately reflect your values just like every other action in your life ultimately reflects your values.
Click to expand...

Yes, and just because the majority wants something, that doesn't make it moral.Just because the majority thinks that giving is good, doesn't give them right to take from those who would rather keep what they have in the name of charity.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Ultimately are laws are not edicts handed down from a dictator. They are the collective products of each and everyone of us. Now I am not arguing for or against a government provided Universal Health care System. I am merely pointing out that as a Christian you cannot just say that the government that I elect and that represents me does not have to pursue justice and compassion because that government ultimately is a reflection of all of us.

So you might say, hey, everyone should have health care if they need it, I just don't believe its something that the federal government can accomplish the way they are trying to accomplish it. Otherwise, I don't think that 300 million of us can collectively accomplish this goal through that institution. That is a perfectly valid position to hold as a Christian. However, you cannot say, my Christian values only narrowly apply to the actions that I personally deem as my individual actions, and not my actions as it relates to the government institutions I ultimately choose to represent me and act on my behalf.
Click to expand...

If you want universal health care, fine. But you shouldn't bring God into the situation. Jesus said nothing about forced "charity."
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, I am not saying that you should vote to compel adherence to your moral beliefs. For example, you can't force someone not to lie or not to sleep around on their spouse. Those are choices that they have to make.
Click to expand...
The point you continue to miss is that, under the teachings of Christianity, there is no moral good in forcing someone to do good, either in the act of forcing the person, or in the act that was forced.
 
Okay, I changed my mind.

He'd be for UHC...

...carpenters get ****ty benefits ;)

(J/K)
 
Goobieman said:
To spread His word.
Among other things, to teach that people should, of their own free will, give to the sick and the poor.

I'm not at all sure why you havn't gotten this by now.


There you go. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Case reopened. Free will is exactly what is going on here. By their own free will millions have decided that the current situation is unsustainable and voted in a group of representatives that may for once listen. Just because you are on the other side of this debate does not mean this is some kind of dictatorship it simply means you may get outvoted. If you think this kind of democracy sucks maybe you think that a monarchy would be better?
 
Goobieman said:
The point you continue to miss is that, under the teachings of Christianity, there is no moral good in forcing someone to do good, either in the act of forcing the person, or in the act that was forced.
Click to expand...

We are at an impasse. You are arguing that if you do something good through government that others are being forced to do it, thus there is no good in it.

I am arguing that in a representative democracy, we do with the institutions of government what we wish to do with them, thus the actions of government are ultimately our choice and the product of our actions.

Those are irreconcilable positions obviously, so we wont get anywhere arguing it further.
 
angrycarpenter said:
Case reopened. Free will is exactly what is going on here.
Click to expand...
How can you say that?
UHC removes the free will in that it forces people to provide for the sick and the poort. In that, it is NOT charity under Christain teachings.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
We are at an impasse. You are arguing that if you do something good through government that others are being forced to do it, thus there is no good in it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
How can you say that?
UHC removes the free will in that it forces people to provide for the sick and the poort. In that, it is NOT charity under Christain teachings.
Click to expand...

Read the comment directly above yours he said it better than I ever could.
 
angrycarpenter said:
Read the comment directly above yours he said it better than I ever could.
Click to expand...
Well then, you shall receive the same response:

Unless you can describe the error in my position, you will contine to be wrong.
 
Goobieman said:
How can you say that?
UHC removes the free will in that it forces people to provide for the sick and the poort. In that, it is NOT charity under Christain teachings.
Click to expand...

So should we eliminate the fire department and ambulance that tax dollars pay for and aid the sick and poor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom