Healthcare question for Christians

Black Dog · Aug 17, 2009

creation said:
No this case too, you may well be for some other type of healthcare, but if you are against helping all of your fellow men then you had best be for some other way of making sure all men are given support or you'll be falling foul of christ.

Bull****. Who are you to tell me I must come up with some way to give all people health coverage or I am falling foul of Christ????

**** you and the horse you road in on. I can honestly say Jesus would tell you much the same in less harsh wording. Actually I know exactly what he would say...

"Judge not lest you be judged."

creation said:
There is no way out of one's responsibilities to man and in the end liberals are unconcerned about charity or public options, as long as one can guarantee cover for everyone.

So it sounds like they don't care unless they can get out of being personally responsible. I see.

I already give to charity, I don't need the government to take it from me forcibly to redistribute it.

creation said:
Its irrelevant that none are righteous, for its the striving that counts. Grasping at straws no. I draw on a long tradition.

A tradition of what tyranny and majority rule?

creation said:
Every kind act reflects the kindness that governs daily life. Every political actor is a human actor, from the highest to the lowest. Every law will affect you at some point in your life as our personal lives are rules by political forces and vice versa, especially these days. The personal has always been a political phenomenon right back to when we moved in nomadic tribes. The separation is cute, convenient, but in the end in vain.

Save it for a dumb ass who would believe contrary to what is the reality of the situation.

creation said:
Simply because it wasnt the great evil of the day. Slavery occurred for many reasons, including the restitution of debt.

Bull****. It was because in Rome it was legal, period.

creation said:
Why on earth not?

Because they were making a statement about faith in God not politicizing anything. :roll:

creation · Aug 17, 2009

Blackdog said:
Bull****. Who are you to tell me I must come up with some way to give all people health coverage or I am falling foul of Christ????

**** you and the horse you road in on. I can honestly say Jesus would tell you much the same in less harsh wording. Actually I know exactly what he would say...

"Judge not lest you be judged."

I am your fellow human, giving my interpretation of Christ, that's who.

You should have mentioned the next line too, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"

I have little difficulty being judged on this matter, as I by supporting both charity and public support and ensuring I'm doing the best I can for fellow man.

So it sounds like they don't care unless they can get out of being personally responsible. I see.

I already give to charity, I don't need the government to take it from me forcibly to redistribute it.

They are responsible personally for giving of charity and the contribution to public support, there is no getting out.

Indeed you do give to charity, as do I. Charitable support is a poor method for providing support for an entire population. Thats why its immoral to demand that one's society relies on this method.

A tradition of what tyranny and majority rule?

Majority rule certainly, but I was referring to the christian socialist tradition.

Save it for a dumb ass who would believe contrary to what is the reality of the situation.

The political nature of personal life refers directly to the nitty gritty of real life.

Bull****. It was because in Rome it was legal, period.

It was legal everywhere, and was normal practice among the tribes.

Because they were making a statement about faith in God not politicizing anything. :

Yet again and again the powers that be took the trouble to find them and kill them.

Harshaw · Aug 17, 2009

Ummmm . . .

Slavery is an evil no matter if it's legal.

Are you saying it's not? Are you saying as long as it's widespread and legal, it's not evil?

Is that seriously what you're saying?

creation · Aug 17, 2009

Goobieman said:
Aside form the fact that this is wrong, it doesn't address what I said.

If you believe that it is OK for force your version of Christian morality onto others, you must then agree that it is OK for others to do the same.

And so, when someone argues that we should do something you don't like because of their version of Christian morality -- like, say, ban abortion and/or same-sex marriages -- you do not have any standing to disagree.

Else, you're just a hypocritical partisan bigot.

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.

creation · Aug 17, 2009

Harshaw said:
Ummmm . . .

Slavery is an evil no matter if it's legal.

Are you saying it's not? Are you saying as long as it's widespread and legal, it's not evil?

Is that seriously what you're saying?

Im aware that Jesus spoke out against the traders in slaves, which is less a matter of personal indebtedness than outright profiting on misery.

jamesrage · Aug 17, 2009

disneydude said:
Just because you want to throw the label "socialism" on UHC doesn't make it so.

Publicly funded government ran health care is described as socialized medicine. So support of socialized medicine/health care is support for socialism. If you do not like being viewed as a socialist then you shouldn't support socialist programs. If you like supporting socialist programs then you shouldn't mind you or those programs being called socialist.

Your rationale would make Education, Public works (roads, bridges, highways), Police/Fire services, etc....all socialist programs.

Then again....you probably honestly view them as such, correct?

Public works as well as police and firemen is generally something usually funded by tax payers. Where most of the roads in Roman empire funded solely by private entities or where they funded by the taxes the government in the Roman empire collected.

Harshaw · Aug 17, 2009

creation said:
Im aware that Jesus spoke out against the traders in slaves, which is less a matter of personal indebtedness than outright profiting on misery.

That's not what I asked.

creation · Aug 17, 2009

jamesrage said:
Publicly funded government ran health care is described as socialized medicine. So support of socialized medicine/health care is support for socialism. If you do not like being viewed as a socialist then you shouldn't support socialist programs. If you like supporting socialist programs then you shouldn't mind you or those programs being called socialist.

Public works as well as police and firemen is generally something usually funded by tax payers. Where most of the roads in Roman empire funded solely by private entities or where they funded by the taxes the government in the Roman empire collected.

Do you view other things such as justice and defence as socialised?

Harshaw · Aug 17, 2009

creation said:
Do you view other things such as justice and defence as socialised?

According to this reasoning, nothing is ever socialism.

disneydude · Aug 17, 2009

jamesrage said:
Publicly funded government ran health care is described as socialized medicine. So support of socialized medicine/health care is support for socialism. If you do not like being viewed as a socialist then you shouldn't support socialist programs. If you like supporting socialist programs then you shouldn't mind you or those programs being called socialist.

Public works as well as police and firemen is generally something usually funded by tax payers. Where most of the roads in Roman empire funded solely by private entities or where they funded by the taxes the government in the Roman empire collected.

In your argument "funded by tax payers" = Socialism. This would include education and public works. If you disagree, how do you differentiate between "Publicly funded healthcare" and services "usually funded by tax payers"?

Black Dog · Aug 17, 2009

creation said:
I am your fellow human, giving my interpretation of Christ, that's who.

No. You are a sinner trying to say your way is better.

creation said:
You should have mentioned the next line too, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"

I have little difficulty being judged on this matter, as I by supporting both charity and public support and ensuring I'm doing the best I can for fellow man.

Then you will be judged for trying to use Jesus to push a political agenda that Biblically he does not stand for.

creation said:
They are responsible personally for giving of charity and the contribution to public support, there is no getting out.

They are responsible for the welfare mentality and not much else.

creation said:
Indeed you do give to charity, as do I. Charitable support is a poor method for providing support for an entire population. Thats why its immoral to demand that one's society relies on this method.

Hmmm.. seemed top work back in the time of Jesus. Seemed to work before the welfare state.

creation said:
Majority rule certainly, but I was referring to the christian socialist tradition.

Oh I see Christian socialism is it. You mean the same socialism that cased the Dark Ages and the Crusades? Looked like tyranny to the rest of us.

Please. Jesus was not a socialist, he was a spiritualist.

creation said:
The political nature of personal life refers directly to the nitty gritty of real life.

It refers to your trying to use political hackery to pervert the teachings of Christ. Fortunately we know better.

creation said:
It was legal everywhere, and was normal practice among the tribes.

And this somehow makes it right? :2wave: I guess he did not want to make a political issue of it huh?

creation said:
Yet again and again the powers that be took the trouble to find them and kill them.

It was pretty easy to find men who were not afraid of death and had faith to match.

Makes them no less a-political.

CriticalThought · Aug 18, 2009

Blackdog said:
No. You are a sinner trying to say your way is better.

Pot meet kettle.

Black Dog · Aug 18, 2009

CriticalThought said:
Pot meet kettle.

Did you actually read what was posted or are you just trolling?

I am saying Jesus would not have said anything either way because he was not a political figure.

I am also not telling people they will run afoul of Jesus if they don't agree with the Obama health care bill. :roll:

jamesrage · Aug 18, 2009

disneydude said:
In your argument "funded by tax payers" = Socialism.

You also forgot controlled by the government and private entity/industry. So your eit is funded by tax payers+ controlled by the government+

This would include education and public works. If you disagree, how do you differentiate between "Publicly funded healthcare" and services "usually funded by tax payers"?
Things like roads,bridges,highways,firefighters and police are not privately owned entities, hospitals are privately owned entities.

jamesrage · Aug 18, 2009

disneydude said:
In your argument "funded by tax payers" = Socialism.

You also forgot controlled by the government and private entity/industry. So your equation should be funded by tax payers + private entity now controlled by the government = socialism.

This would include education and public works. If you disagree, how do you differentiate between "Publicly funded healthcare" and services "usually funded by tax payers"?

Things like roads,bridges,highways,firefighters and police are not privately owned entities, hospitals are privately owned entities. Things like roads,highways and bridges have for centuries been the responsibility of the government to provide. Things like police and fire fighters are usally the general responsibility of the government to protect their citizens and ensure their citizens obey the law.

phattonez · Aug 18, 2009

I think that Jesus would want things done independently of the government. He probably would want us to make sure that everyone gets health care by giving to charities ourselves.

Black Dog · Aug 18, 2009

Wanted to take a second and point something out here. This is not an attack, just an observation on this thread and others like it.

BLZebub - Not Chrsitian
Devil505 - Not Christian
Disnydude - Christian
Gwendoline - Unknown
Joe1991 - Not Christian
Laila - Sunni Muslim
Layla Z - Unknown
NDN Dancer - Not Christian
SouthernDemocrat - Jeffersonian Christian (I know exactly what that is as I am similar)

Out of the 9 Members who voted yes to the question only 2 or 3 are actual Christians. 4 are confirmed non-believers/different religion. I would say the 2 unknown are likely Christians of some sort but you never know.

Interesting. This deserves another thread all to itself.

creation · Aug 18, 2009

Blackdog said:
No. You are a sinner trying to say your way is better.

We're all sinners, so its irrelevant. You asked who I was, I told you.

Then you will be judged for trying to use Jesus to push a political agenda that Biblically he does not stand for.

Indeed, I will be judged. We all will. I must say Id be curious to hear his take on things.

They are responsible for the welfare mentality and not much else.

Sorry wrong, Liberals pay taxes and give to charity, are responsible and have built the country you live in, just like everyone else.

Hmmm.. seemed top work back in the time of Jesus. Seemed to work before the welfare state.

Really Blackdog, I thought you could do better than that. It didnt work one bit, up until the 20th century before which all provision was charitable, infant mortality was far higher.
Without public provision of health, the US was in a far worse state. There is nowhere on earth that achieves western levels of health while not providing some form of public support.
Charity never has and never will do the same job. You know this and so does everyone else.

Oh I see Christian socialism is it. You mean the same socialism that cased the Dark Ages and the Crusades? Looked like tyranny to the rest of us.

Socialism in the dark ages? What are you talking about?

You werent even alive then, or were you?

Please. Jesus was not a socialist, he was a spiritualist.

His words and deeds say different, but then we've been over this.

It refers to your trying to use political hackery to pervert the teachings of Christ. Fortunately we know better.

Please stick to the point. The personal life has always been political, any attempt to avoid this little fact is naive.

And this somehow makes it right? :2wave: I guess he did not want to make a political issue of it huh?

It was not seen as the great evil it is today, but often as a matter of debt in society where slavery is one of the normal conditions. Moses himself wasnt against slaves. He spoke against the traders in slaves, but he wasnt being political was he? :roll:

It was pretty easy to find men who were not afraid of death and had faith to match.
Makes them no less a-political.

How would you know?

Anyway, why go to the trouble of killing them if their actions were apolitical?

creation · Aug 18, 2009

phattonez said:
I think that Jesus would want things done independently of the government. He probably would want us to make sure that everyone gets health care by giving to charities ourselves.

As do I and every liberal in the land, however it aint gonna happen. Never has and never will, thats why taxation is the only way and everyone sharing the burden is the only way.

Black Dog · Aug 18, 2009

creation said:
As do I and every liberal in the land, however it aint gonna happen. Never has and never will, thats why taxation is the only way and everyone sharing the burden is the only way.

I understand this and agree, but Jesus is not nor will ever be about force. Jesus is about free will and love. This is the real problem with your argument.

Taxing the people is taking money by force to pay for someone else. Forcing people to pay for charity is not charity and it never will be.

Black Dog · Aug 18, 2009

creation said:
We're all sinners, so its irrelevant. You asked who I was, I told you.

Thanks for realising that.

creation said:
Indeed, I will be judged. We all will. I must say Id be curious to hear his take on things.

Well you seem to think you know his take on politics?

creation said:
Sorry wrong, Liberals pay taxes and give to charity, are responsible and have built the country you live in, just like everyone else.

And lets give credit where it is due. Created the mess of a welfare state we have now.

creation said:
Really Blackdog, I thought you could do better than that. It didnt work one bit, up until the 20th century before which all provision was charitable, infant mortality was far higher.

I wonder if technology had a little something to do with that hmmm?

creation said:
Without public provision of health, the US was in a far worse state. There is nowhere on earth that achieves western levels of health while not providing some form of public support.

No one is saying no public form of help should exist. We are saying don't use Jesus as an excuse to push a political agenda.

creation said:
Charity never has and never will do the same job. You know this and so does everyone else.

Irrelevant to the garbage the Obama health care is.

creation said:
Socialism in the dark ages? What are you talking about?

You werent even alive then, or were you?

I have to have been alive to know the history?

creation said:
His words and deeds say different, but then we've been over this.

He was concerned for our salvation and love for God above all else. This was his message it had nothing to do with politics and was spiritual in nature, period.

creation said:
Please stick to the point. The personal life has always been political, any attempt to avoid this little fact is naive.

That is your opinion and as I have stated before you seem to think everything is political.

So no surprise here.

creation said:
It was not seen as the great evil it is today, but often as a matter of debt in society where slavery is one of the normal conditions. Moses himself wasnt against slaves. He spoke against the traders in slaves, but he wasnt being political was he? :roll:

He was being political but that was the covenant with God's chosen people he was trying to get God's chosen out of bondage. This has literally nothing to do with this debate.

Jesus did not speak out against allot of evil things in the Roman Empire because it would have made it political.

creation said:
How would you know?

Because we know how most of them died? :shock:

creation said:
Anyway, why go to the trouble of killing them if their actions were apolitical?

Because they broke the law, same reason we still execute people. Has nothing to do with politics in and of itself.

creation · Aug 18, 2009

Blackdog said:
I understand this and agree, but Jesus is not nor will ever be about force. Jesus is about free will and love. This is the real problem with your argument.

Taxing the people is taking money by force to pay for someone else. Forcing people to pay for charity is not charity and it never will be.

Was Jesus against taxes? What has Jesus said about free will? In fact Jesus referred to true freedom in service to mankind.

There is no problem with my argument.

Indeed, taxation is not charity. This is just as well as Charity is incapable of wide scale provision, just as you wouldnt have charity for defence or justice, its no use for health either.

Black Dog · Aug 18, 2009

creation said:
Was Jesus against taxes? What has Jesus said about free will? In fact Jesus referred to true freedom in service to mankind.

There is no problem with my argument.

Yes there is.

Service to mankind is not forced by government. Charity is not forced. Jesus did not force anyone to do anything.

creation said:
Indeed, taxation is not charity. This is just as well as Charity is incapable of wide scale provision, just as you wouldnt have charity for defence or justice, its no use for health either.

So you admit you are trying to use Christ as a political tool? Well at least you are honest.

Defense and justice is why we have government, not for state sanctioned theft and wealth distribution.

creation · Aug 18, 2009

Blackdog said:
Thanks for realising that.

What is the relevance?

Well you seem to think you know his take on politics?

Yes.

And lets give credit where it is due. Created the mess of a welfare state we have now.

Which has provided for millions, kept the old from suffering and death in the cold of winter and kept babies alive across the land.

I wonder if technology had a little something to do with that hmmm?

Indeed. Which has to be paid for and existed some time before solely charitable provision was ended. Charity just hasnt cut it.

No one is saying no public form of help should exist. We are saying don't use Jesus as an excuse to push a political agenda.

The question was what would Jesus do, you have your answer. Dont bother trying to tell us Jesus was uninterested in doing something about suffering if it meant government.

Irrelevant to the garbage the Obama health care is.

Please stick to the point.

I have to be alvie to know the history?

You said it looked like tryranny to the rest of us. Implying you were there.

You obviously dont know history if you think socialism featured in the dark ages.

He was concerned for our salvation and love for God above all else. This was his message it had nothing to do with politics and was spiritual in nature, period.

His words and deeds say different, but then we've been over this.

That is your opinion and as I have stated before you seem to think everything is political.

So no surprise here.

What isnt political?

He was being political but that was the covenant with God's chosen people he was trying to get God's chosen out of bondage. This has literally nothing to do with this debate.

Jesus did not speak out against allot of evil things in the Roman Empire because it would have made it political.

Sorry let me clarify. Jesus spoke against slave traders, was that not political?

Because we know how most of them died? :shock:

So how do you know "It was pretty easy to find men who were not afraid of death and had faith to match"??

Are you confident in this statement?

Because they broke the law, same reason we still execute people. Has nothing to do with politics in and of itself.

Eh? They broke the law and were executed but it wasnt political? What are you talking about?

JohhnyMac · Aug 18, 2009

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.

Healthcare question for Christians

WWJD?

Support UHC

Support a "for profit" insurance healthcare system

Other - explain

King Of The Dog Pound

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Catholic

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

JohhnyMac