Yes, I am convinced the Bible contains the truth, and that Jesus, as He said, IS the truth.
What proof do you have? If you had been born into a Muslim family, you would believe the Qur'an contains the truth.

The evidence is there you just don't want to see it

The evidence is there you just don't want to see it
I see it. I'm a Christian born and bred. But how does a Christian convince someone from another faith that the Christian's holy book is the Truth?

And you don't?

That's part of the nature of truth. It is exclusive, so you can't just choose your own truth like on a smörgåsbord. Either you have the truth or you have something other than the truth. Yes, I am convinced the Bible contains the truth, and that Jesus, as He said, IS the truth. You can feel free to disagree with Him if you like.

Don't have to, I can see where your truth is taking you. NO THANKS!



What proof do you have? If you had been born into a Muslim family, you would believe the Qur'an contains the truth.

All the true believers say that about their faith WG, no matter what evidence is presented.



The evidence is there you just don't want to see it

I agree but that cuts more than one way.

I see it. I'm a Christian born and bred. But how does a Christian convince someone from another faith that the Christian's holy book is the Truth?

You could start by breaking bread and exchanging ideas and giving respect like was done before. You seem to be the only one here that has had such social contacts with people of other faiths WG, and maybe that's the truth we all could stand to see. Personal interaction. There is no need to convince or convert.

Just SHARE.

You could start by breaking bread and exchanging ideas and giving respect like was done before. You seem to be the only one here that has had such social contacts with people of other faiths WG, and maybe that's the truth we all could stand to see. Personal interaction. There is no need to convince or convert.

Just SHARE.
And that's what I said to do earlier in one of these threads.

"I would have asked them about their faith, their beliefs and learned as much as I could, would have shared with them the features of Christianity that were especially common to their faith."

And that's what I said to do earlier in one of these threads.

"I would have asked them about their faith, their beliefs and learned as much as I could, would have shared with them the features of Christianity that were especially common to their faith."

That's a winner in my book WG,since you actually would first have to be in a position of personal interaction, and secondly have to LISTEN to learn what you have in common. I seriously doubt the naysayers (Including those of other religions.) have done either.

seriously doubt the naysayers (Including those of other religions.) have done either.
Interestingly enough, Christianity is the only religion I know of that proselytizes -- "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19 KJV).

I see it. I'm a Christian born and bred. But how does a Christian convince someone from another faith that the Christian's holy book is the Truth?

Show them what you see.

Do you think that a person must have some degree of hunger for us to be able to show them much? That's where our prayers come in. The Holy Spirit must awaken a hunger in their hearts. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them..."

I simply told you what Jesus said. You have to choose what you do with them. .... If you don't accept the words of Christ, then you need to decide whose words you do accept.


I'm not surprised you refuse to engage in discussion. Your position is patently absurd - that those who do not believe as you do are destined to a hell of everlasting punishment. To make matters worse, you further claim Jesus himself held the same position about belief in him being necessary to avoid hell.

Whoever told you this did you a serious disservice. The disservice is compounded as you pass this false idea to others.

I think it reflects something deep in your own psyche. This may be why you see a society exercising compassion through government - government of the people, by the people, and for the people - as some wicked device to take from some to give to others. The Judeo-Christian God commanded his people to take care of each other. Government of hundreds of millions is a far more efficient way to do that than each person relying on himself or his local church. But that's a side issue. The main issue is your condemning most of the world to hell because of how/what they believe. If you step back, you may see the weakness of that.

I'm not surprised you refuse to engage in discussion. Your position is patently absurd - that those who do not believe as you do are destined to a hell of everlasting punishment. To make matters worse, you further claim Jesus himself held the same position about belief in him being necessary to avoid hell.

You just don't like what Jesus said. I'll quote Him again, and just hope it will do some good. As I've said before, your argument is not with me, it is with Him, and the day is coming when you will see Him face to face, and then you can defend yourself if possible.

You can particularly direct your attention to verse 18.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.


39 Jesus said,[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26480a)] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” 41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Hello JL, I can really admire one who is so dedicated to something greater than themselves and it doesn't matter what you call it. Really doesn't matter where you get it from either. I fully understand sharing such a blessing with others but where we conflict, is do you really have to tell others how miserable they are unless they accept your message?

do you really have to tell others how miserable they are unless they accept your message?

And hello back to you, Tal. Now I don't recall saying any such thing. If I have, put the quote here, for I would need to ask forgiveness if I have told anyone to accept what is merely my thoughts. If you will look a little more closely, what I have done is simply put the words of Jesus here. I try to make sure that my beliefs come from His beliefs. I would actively discourage anyone from accepting any belief simply because I say it. I try to always point people to the words of Jesus. Evidently I have been less than clear in that effort.

That could well be true JL, as well as my own misunderstanding and while I won't look for the specific post I remember it had to do with condemning other Christians for not following the word correctly, closely, or something to that affect. I doubt many christians have your level of bible training or scholarship, or exposure which would make a big difference I feel.

condemning other Christians

I hope I am not doing that, but knowing my own tendency to stray, it's possible. I am resting my life on the Gospel. To have God as my Father and Jesus as my Savior is pretty much my life. I highly recommend it.

I do enjoy our discussions.

I doubt many christians have your level of bible training or scholarship, or exposure which would make a big difference I feel.
I have and I disagree with him. I lean much more toward the understandings posted by Athos and dwashbur who possess far more Bible training and scholarship than do JL and I.

I have and I disagree with him.

About what?

BTW, you don't know my level of Bible training, so how do you know if you have the same level? For that matter, how would you know that anyone else possesses "far more" Bible training and scholarship?

I hope I am not doing that, but knowing my own tendency to stray, it's possible. I am resting my life on the Gospel. To have God as my Father and Jesus as my Savior is pretty much my life. I highly recommend it.

I do enjoy our discussions.

I got no problem with it I love the history of man and how they coped with their times. Many lessons to learn. You aren't the most intense person around though, but you are intense. That's not necessarily a bad thing and who am I to judge! Disagreements among scholars and even ordinary people are natural in my view.

but you are intense.

Yeah, that's true. I try to back it off, but it don't come easy! Still, we're both intense, so I guess that's why I am comfortable discussing these things with you. We can get a little wound up, but the next day we're back on a level plane.

I'll quote Him again, and just hope it will do some good. and the day is coming when you will see Him face to face, and then you can defend yourself if possible.

Here you are, threatening again.



You can particularly direct your attention to verse 18.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Nowhere in this quote does Jesus refer to hell as an eternal punishment. "Condemned", also translated as "judged", does not mean eternal punishment. You have interpreted it in this way to justify your own belief. For a better understanding of this quote, read further into John's Gospel.



39 Jesus said,[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26480a)] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” 41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

This quote refers to guilt, not eternal punishment.

Look within yourself for the source of this pernicious belief of non-believers damned to hell.

Yeah, that's true. I try to back it off, but it don't come easy! Still, we're both intense, so I guess that's why I am comfortable discussing these things with you. We can get a little wound up, but the next day we're back on a level plane.

That's an accurate observation. You're a stubborn "old' coot! Takes one to know one, eh?

8D

@Athos

I have found the language and references of ancient man cannot always be fulling applied to a modern understanding without a proper context so your point is well taken, but one of my reservations in taking the bible as an ultimate modern relevance is that lack of context or updating, though I have found many sights that adds good context to the words by bible scholars, absent from regular preachers and word givers. That's my rub.

I don't know if John was proselytizing, or rebuffing his audience. He would have made a great lawyer though if the judge was fair.

@Athos

I have found the language and references of ancient man cannot always be fulling applied to a modern understanding without a proper context so your point is well taken, but one of my reservations in taking the bible as an ultimate modern relevance is that lack of context or updating, though I have found many sights that adds good context to the words by bible scholars, absent from regular preachers and word givers.


I agree that taking things out of context is not a good practice. Taking them out of time can often be worse.

Jlisenb, promoting hell for non-believers, does both.

Suggesting that Jesus is the one to have this discusssion with is simply his way of not being able to defend a weak position.

Nowhere in this quote does Jesus refer to hell as an eternal punishment. "Condemned", also translated as "judged", does not mean eternal punishment. You have interpreted it in this way to justify your own belief. For a better understanding of this quote, read further into John's Gospel.

Or you can read this. Yes, you will have to discuss it with Him. There are plain and clear meanings in scripture. Your primary objection seems to be that Jesus just refuses to teach what you already believe, so you quibble about the details.

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the [c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-24040c)]holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did itto one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

There are plain and clear meanings in scripture.

<skip>


Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did itto one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’


You are making my case for me.

Nowhere in this lengthy section quoting Jesus does he condemn non-believers to hell.

In fact, his judgment is against the "righteous" (believers), and not for unbelief but for inaction - not feeding the hungry, not helping the sick, not clothing the naked, etc.

Here Jesus clearly places action above belief.

You can split the hair any way you want, but the point is that Jesus is condemning people to hell.

I don't think He is putting action above belief. He is demonstrating that actions FOLLOW beliefs. How can a believer in Christ not care for the unfortunate? That belief is paramount is shown clearly in John 3:16. Those who believe in Jesus will not perish. Clearly, those who do NOT believe will perish.

I am all for helping the poor and have done so for decades. Jesus plainly taught we should do so. I am opposed to those who wish to demonstrate their supposedly charitable inclinations by compelling OTHERS to help the poor. Jesus taught that I am to help the poor, but He most certainly never taught that I am to compel you to help the poor.

You can split the hair any way you want, but the point is that Jesus is condemning people to hell.

You changed the point. It is not about "Jesus condemning people to hell". It is about YOUR belief that non-believers are condemned to hell. Quite a difference and hardly hair-splitting.

When challenged, you retreat behind accusations of splitting hairs, quote sections of the New Testament that clearly do not support your position, and even suggest discussing the issue with Jesus!


I don't think He is putting action above belief.

If belief is necessary for salvation, then why are the righteous in your quotation condemned?

If belief is necessary for salvation, then why are the righteous in your quotation condemned?

Because, as I said, actions follow (reveal, illuminate) beliefs.


It is about YOUR belief that non-believers are condemned to hell.


Uhm... if that is not what John 3:16 says, then what does it say?

You have such a strange belief, that believers are going to be condemned and unbelievers are going to be redeemed. Where in the Bible do you get such a belief?

Since I seem to be the only one here quoting Jesus, I'll try it again. "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-15.htm)Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

So is that a reference to believers in Sodom, or unbelievers? What do you believe will happen on "the day of judgement"?

Because, as I said, actions follow (reveal, illuminate) beliefs.

Then actions are also necessary for salvation. Since, without them, the righteous perish.



Uhm... if that is not what John 3:16 says, then what does it say?

It says believers shall have eternal life. Your other quote says everlasting fire awaits those who do not feed, clothe, visit, etc. even though they're believers.



You have such a strange belief, that believers are going to be condemned and unbelievers are going to be redeemed. Where in the Bible do you get such a belief?

You have no idea what my beliefs are. Yet you think you know what they are. In any case, the issue is YOUR belief that non-believers are condemned to hell.


Since I seem to be the only one here quoting Jesus, I'll try it again.

You are quoting Jesus but drawing the wrong conclusion about belief and condemnation which has been pointed out to you several times now.



"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-15.htm)Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

So is that a reference to believers in Sodom, or unbelievers? What do you believe will happen on "the day of judgement"?

The reference to Sodom may be believers or unbelievers or both. Whatever happens on the day of judgment, I can assure you that non-believers will not be judged to go to hell.

It says believers shall have eternal life.

You're being evasive. The clear and obvious implication is that all are perishing, but that through believing in Christ, believers "shall not perish", obviously meaning that non-believers will. A second grader could see that.


I can assure you that non-believers will not be judged to go to hell.

So where in the Bible does it tell us that non-believers are not going to be judged? I have provided a half-dozen or so quotes from Jesus where He disagrees with you, so I guess I'm going to stick with what He says.


You are quoting Jesus but drawing the wrong conclusion about belief and condemnation which has been pointed out to you several times now.

You are evidently drawing your conclusions from the Gospel of Athos. The statements of Jesus are plain. You have made no references to scripture at all, but only state your opinion. Sorry, but that's not good enough. But just to take one more stab at it, in Revelation 20 we read, "And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." Now just for the record, I find that concept troubling, but since I didn't write the Bible, and since it is clear that God's wisdom far exceeds mine, I just simply accept it.

"And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."
Revelation was written for those living in Nero's time. As my pastor told us, "It was written in code and has not yet been completely decoded."

The idea that Revelation was written about 65 A.D. is, I think, a minority view. The more common date for that book is in the last decade of the first century. Nero died in 68 A.D. so if the later date is correct, then the Nero connection won't work. At any rate, saying that Revelation was "written in code" is kind of far-fetched. None of the other NT authors wrote in code, and they were under constant pressure from the Romans. Not to say that's it is impossible, but it just would not seem likely. For sure you would think the early church fathers would have mentioned it.

Revelation almost didn't make the cut into the canon partly because of what I said.

And where have you found that?

And where have you found that?
Because millennialists had traditionally used Revelation as the main source of their teachings, "the Church was slow to accept Revelation as scripture." 1 Origen, an early Christian theologian, used the term antilegomena to describe those books -- including Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation -- whose inclusion in the official canon of the Bible was actively disputed. In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement, Revelation was only reluctantly included. "To this day, Orthodox churches do not use Revelation for scripture readings during worship."
The biblical book of Revelation: acceptance and dispute (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb5d.htm)

"As a source, the book of Revelation is something of an outlier for a book of the Bible that got accepted into the canonical New Testament of most branches of Christianity: it is the only explicitly eschatological work in the New Testament, its date of composition is generally taken to be far later than the other books, its content is dramatic, and its author is not certain."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13997/what-historical-reasons-resulted-in-revelation-being-included-in-most-christian

In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement,

Lost me there. That is a highly speculative statement. There were a large number of gospels and epistles in existence, but the vast majority were not accepted by the church and very few survive to this day.

Jesus said to give Caesar his due? Then stop complaining when you are taxed so the poor, old, and children are taken care of.

Jesus said to give Caesar his due? Then stop complaining when you are taxed so the poor, old, and children are taken care of.

Why do you accept what Jesus said there, but not what Jesus said concerning judgement?

I neither accept or reject either premise, but the former is more logical, and fits my own moral compass, is my answer. The later calls into question the language and circumstances that surrond what is/was said, and at this time admittedly is beyond my own sensibility. Apologies if my flaws in understanding undermines your complete faith in these matters. I have a problem accepting the words of ancient man completely, though I do not question yours.

fits my own moral compass,

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?
God gave us free will. Apparently, everyone uses it.

Apparently, everyone uses it.

Free will versus individual moral compass... not the same thing.

Free will versus individual moral compass... not the same thing.
Please define each and tell how they are different.

Free will means I get to make my own decisions, such as how to spend my money as opposed to the tyranny of the feds taking my money to spend on charity. (Sorry... couldn't help but add that last part.)

An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.

A person can exercise his/her free will in doing an action which that person might admit is actually morally wrong, so the two cannot be the same.

An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.
This is also called free will. Questions? Ask Cain.

Jesus had free will, but even He did not operate on His own moral compass during His time on earth. Neither did Paul, Peter, John, James, Priscilla, Aquila, etc. Come on. They are plainly not the same thing.

Ask Cain? I think he would tell you that he operated his own free will to follow his own moral compass, and that is where he failed. Abraham, on the other hand, learned not to.

For that matter, I have my own free will, but I choose to submit my will to God's moral compass, as you also profess to do. I exercise my free will to follow someone else's moral compass, and not mine, so they are plainly not the same thing.

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?

YES!



Free will means I get to make my own decisions, such as how to spend my money as opposed to the tyranny of the feds taking my money to spend on charity. (Sorry... couldn't help but add that last part.)


I don't characterize nor consider our government as a tyranny, though I disagree with some things they do, but I support it with taxes and voting of my own free will, guided by a moral compass both learned and taught within the boundaries of good behavior which I would hope every one would follow for the common good.



An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.

While this may be true killing is against the law in most cases and does it matter what's in your mind when it comes to others? If your moral compass sends you over the line of good behavior, then you deal with the laws of the land in the court of law. That's how it should work and everybody knows that.



A person can exercise his/her free will in doing an action which that person might admit is actually morally wrong, so the two cannot be the same.

Eyes and ears are not the same but they work together, though you can live without one or the other, as without a moral compass free will can land you in big trouble as can a free will without a moral compass. It's a moot circular argument to point out the difference.

You can always choose to do right, or wrong depend on where your moral compass is, unless somebody locks you up and you can do neither.


Jesus had free will, but even He did not operate on His own moral compass during His time on earth. Neither did Paul, Peter, John, James, Priscilla, Aquila, etc. Come on. They are plainly not the same thing.

Ask Cain? I think he would tell you that he operated his own free will to follow his own moral compass, and that is where he failed. Abraham, on the other hand, learned not to.

For that matter, I have my own free will, but I choose to submit my will to God's moral compass, as you also profess to do. I exercise my free will to follow someone else's moral compass, and not mine, so they are plainly not the same thing.

I disagree, they all chose the path they took and there is NO evidence otherwise. Now talking of the individual actions and the COLLECTIVE actions may not be the same.

If your moral compass sends you over the line of good behavior,

Who are you to tell someone their moral compass is not producing "good behavior"? It's good to them, so why would you feel free to inflict your own, personal moral code on someone else? If you are, then they really aren't free to have their own moral code. You said they are, but now you suggest they are, but only so long as it produces what is, to you, "good behavior".



"..as without a moral compass free will can land you in big trouble as can a free will without a moral compass.." You are saying the same thing twice!! It makes no sense at all. You admit they are different and then say it's a circular argument. That is not what a circular argument is.


I disagree, they all chose the path they took and there is NO evidence otherwise. Now talking of the individual actions and the COLLECTIVE actions may not be the same.

You have no idea of what I was saying. Of course they chose the path they took, but the path was given to them by God. It was His moral compass that they freely chose, though they could have persisted with their own. Not everyone does that, so plainly and obviously they are not the same thing.

Who are you to tell someone their moral compass is not producing "good behavior"? It's good to them, so why would you feel free to inflict your own, personal moral code on someone else? If you are, then they really aren't free to have their own moral code. You said they are, but now you suggest they are, but only so long as it produces what is, to you, "good behavior".

I inflict nothing on anyone, but the LAW does, not me, so I gather it's okay to inflict YOUR moral code on someone else through laws that restrict their freedoms according to YOUR moral code.


You are saying the same thing twice!! It makes no sense at all. You admit they are different and then say it's a circular argument. That is not what a circular argument is.

A moral compass is but the guide to get you to the path your free will takes you... within confines of the laws of good behavior. Granted laws change as conditions and attitudes change, and history is that those changes come with more freedoms for those that didn't have it before. What makes your argument circular is your constant insistence that expressing ones position is a restriction on another's freedom when it is NOT.


You have no idea of what I was saying. Of course they chose the path they took, but the path was given to them by God. It was His moral compass that they freely chose, though they could have persisted with their own. Not everyone does that, so plainly and obviously they are not the same thing.

By now you should have gotten the point that I really don't care about what ancient man did or why but remain fascinated by the fact that they did it. Martyrdom is always a fascinating thing that has moved humans throughout existence to this day across many cultures, tribes, and societies.

I inflict nothing on anyone, but the LAW does, not me, so I gather it's okay to inflict YOUR moral code on someone else through laws that restrict their freedoms according to YOUR moral code.

Correct, which means that you are not free to have your own moral code. It is a limited arrangement.


within confines of the laws of good behavior. Granted laws change as conditions and attitudes change, and history is that those changes come with more freedoms for those that didn't have it before. What makes your argument circular is your constant insistence that expressing ones position is a restriction on another's freedom when it is NOT.

1. You still don't understand what a circular argument is.
2. I have never said that merely expressing your position is a restriction on another's freedom, but when you IMPOSE your position on others, which happens all the time with law, or with an employer, or within families or organizations, then you do restrict the freedoms of others.


A moral compass is but the guide to get you to the path your free will takes you

Thereby demonstrating they are not the same thing. The moral compass advises and guides, but the free will makes decisions.

If you don't like the laws which set the boundaries of good behavior, and protect you from the behavior of others then change them through the lawful process afforded to you. That seems to supersede any of the moral compass and free will arguments you have and who cares if the debate is circular or not? The difference between MC and FW one and the same to me and that's all that matters... TO ME!

That doesn't mean you're wrong, just have a different view which I have no problem accepting.

You're being evasive. The clear and obvious implication is that all are perishing, but that through believing in Christ, believers "shall not perish", obviously meaning that non-believers will. A second grader could see that.

Then you are a second grader seeing what is not there. Hoisted by his own petard!!




So where in the Bible does it tell us that non-believers are not going to be judged? I have provided a half-dozen or so quotes from Jesus where He disagrees with you, so I guess I'm going to stick with what He says.

You misquote me. Your position is non-believers will suffer eternal punishment in hell. Please stick to the issue. It is not Jesus that disagrees - it is YOU who disagrees.


The statements of Jesus are plain.

Yes, they couldn't be plainer. Yet you add to his statements to support your position.


You have made no references to scripture at all

I have referenced every scripture you presented and shown you the error of your ways by my reading of the exact words of Christ without adding my own ideas.


But just to take one more stab at it, in Revelation 20 we read, "And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." Now just for the record, I find that concept troubling, but since I didn't write the Bible, and since it is clear that God's wisdom far exceeds mine, I just simply accept it.

Stab, indeed! If you think these words are to be taken literally, that may be a large part of your problem. Even if they ARE taken literally, they do not prove the existence of an everlasting punishment in hell for those who do not believe as you do.

I have referenced every scripture you presented and shown you the error of your ways by my reading of the exact words of Christ without adding my own ideas.

I went back and looked over the four pages prior to this one. You scarcely quote scripture. Your approach is more akin to running around, waving your arms, and offering your opinions. I'm just not sure how you handle the Matt. 25 passage which reads, "41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

Slice it any way you want, but Jesus is plainly stating that judgement is coming. If you want to say, as you did, that Jesus is commending good works as the path of salvation, then fine. There are good reasons to decide against that view, but there is still judgement coming.


If you think these words are to be taken literally, that may be a large part of your problem

The problem is that you don't think any scripture should be taken literally. I'll just stick to the words of Jesus.

Jesus didn't come to have us all in agreement but to have us see the issues and respond to his actions, as Solomon said everything else is just vanity

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed
Who is cursed? And why?

into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
And that "eternal fire" is...?

Can we first agree that there will be those are "cursed" and condemned to judgement?

Can we first agree that there will be those are "cursed" and condemned to judgement?
For what will they be cursed?

Not yet. Do we agree?

My understanding of "cursed" and "judgement" and "who" I'm sure are different from yours. And I know you, like I did for years, very much want "evildoers" (who are not at all Christlike) to be cursed and judged. I don't think we can agree until we define terms in the same way.

I went back and looked over the four pages prior to this one. You scarcely quote scripture. Your approach is more akin to running around, waving your arms, and offering your opinions. I'm just not sure how you handle the Matt. 25 passage which reads, "41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

Here is the full quote which you originally posted.


31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the [c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-24040c)]holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did itto one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’


I will answer it the same way I did the first time.

Nowhere in this lengthy section quoting Jesus does he condemn non-believers to eternal punishment in hell.

In fact, his judgment is against the "righteous" (believers), and not for unbelief but for inaction - not feeding the hungry, not helping the sick, not clothing the naked, etc.

The words of Jesus are perfectly clear.




Slice it any way you want, but Jesus is plainly stating that judgement is coming.

I never denied Jesus stated judgment is coming. What I DO deny is your belief that non-believers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell. How many times do I have to repeat that? It's a simple statement.



The problem is that you don't think any scripture should be taken literally.

That's not true. Again, you attribute to me positions I have not stated. Much of Scripture can be taken literally.



I'll just stick to the words of Jesus.

That's an excellent idea but you have yet to do that. In each instance of your Scripture references, you have added a meaning not contained in the words. I understand why you do that - it might even be subconscious - but you should treat Scripture with the respect it deserves. You have not done that. You have treated Scripture as a means to an end - namely, to support an un-Scriptural point.

My understanding of "cursed" and "judgement" and "who" I'm sure are different from yours. And I know you, like I did for years, very much want "evildoers" (who are not at all Christlike) to be cursed and judged. I don't think we can agree until we define terms in the same way.

No point in exploring any of that until we can first agree that there will be those are "cursed" and condemned to judgement.

In fact, his judgment is against the "righteous" (believers), and not for unbelief but for inaction - not feeding the hungry, not helping the sick, not clothing the naked, etc.

Part of his point is that those who called themselves "righteous" (such as the Pharisees) were, in fact, not righteous at all as demonstrated by their actions, and certainly are never referred to as "believers".


I never denied Jesus stated judgment is coming.

Against whom, and in what way?

I believe there will be judgment = God's forming an opinion about someone or something by means of careful weighing of evidence.

I believe there will be judgment = forming of an opinion about someone or something by means of careful weighing of evidence.

Evasive answer. Will they be condemned to judgement?

Judgment isn't a negative. I believe all of us will be judged.

Part of his point is that those who called themselves "righteous" (such as the Pharisees) were, in fact, not righteous at all as demonstrated by their actions, and certainly are never referred to as "believers".

However you want to slice it, it does not mean unbelievers are condemned to everlasting punishment in hell.



Against whom, and in what way?

This is your reply to my comment "I never denied Jesus stated judgment is coming". I don't know what you mean.

This is your reply to my comment "I never denied Jesus stated judgment is coming". I don't know what you mean.

Who will He judge, and what will be the consequences of that judgement?


Judgment isn't a negative. I believe all of us will be judged.

Still being evasive. Will that judgement entail any negative consequences? If so, what will they be?

Who will He judge, and what will be the consequences of that judgement?
He will judge all of us, and His verdict is yet to be determined.

He will judge all of us, and His verdict is yet to be determined.

Still evasive. Will the wicked by judged, and if so, in what way?

Still being evasive. Will that judgement entail any negative consequences? If so, what will they be?
Watch "Judge Judy." In every trial, there are winners as well as losers.

Oh well. You are unwilling to take a position. Too bad.

Still evasive. Will the wicked by judged, and if so, in what way?
Are there wicked among us? Are we at times wicked? Are there righteous among us? Are we at times righteous? Yes, the wicked will be judged. Yes, the righteous will also be judged.

The usual non-committal answer.

Who will He judge, and what will be the consequences of that judgement?


My argument with you is NOT about judgment. It is about your contention that unbelievers will be condemned to everlasting punishment in hell. You have offered several Bible quotations in support of your contention, but each one requires your added meaning that simply is not in the words quoted.

You refuse to see this very plain truth since it does not fit in with your established belief which you claim represents the words of Jesus when clearly it does not. At this point, I would only be repeating myself so I will exit this discussion and leave you to ponder these things.

How strange that both of you, Athos and Wondergirl, are so fearful of actually stating what you believe. You're perfectly happy to be critical, and yet so afraid and unwilling to state your own position.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/167/16792/1679202.jpg

Now Tal, on the other hand, has no such fear.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F167%2F16788%2F1678872.jpg&t=1542807000&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c9b-3a0001015100&sig=T68.gw9GKB6Tstg0wNYmcg--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2148253?ezine=640&r=ONOBjfHgRxY3JWKpQ80KBGP8zwUNMhqikU6-7O-CVG1DOjUxMDM2OTA1Oko6MTgwMzM1NjpMOjY0MDpSOjI5Nzk4N TpTOjIxNDgyNTM6Vjo0OA)

How strange that both of you, Athos and Wondergirl, are so fearful of actually stating what you believe. You're perfectly happy to be critical, and yet so afraid and unwilling to state your own position.

I have stated my position in almost every single post to you! What in the world are you talking about?

To help your reading comprehension, here's my position. To wit: that YOUR belief that unbelievers go to everlasting punishment in hell is false and non-Biblical. Not only have I stated my position, I have conclusively proven it by using your own Biblical references. You seem to think insulting those who don't believe as you do is a proof of your belief. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Go, and read some more.

So your belief is that my belief is wrong. OK, but I think you are afraid to post your positions on judgement, who will be judged, and what will the consequence of that judgement be. But perhaps I am not making myself clear in my questions, so let's try it again.

What do you think Paul means in Ephesians 2 when he says, speaking of the Ephesian Christians, "and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." What does it mean that they were (past tense), "children of wrath, like the rest of mankind"?

And then what does he mean when he says shortly after, "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works..."

How strange that both of you, Athos and Wondergirl, are so fearful of actually stating what you believe. You're perfectly happy to be critical, and yet so afraid and unwilling to state your own position.
I have said more than once and in different words that ALL will be judged. That includes you and me.

"Unbelievers will go to hell and to eternal punishment in a fiery pit." Jesus used those words because He knew His listeners would quickly and easily understand the point He was making. If Jesus was on earth today, He would get my attention, not with hellfire, but by warning me that I won't want to end up in an unending kitchenful of dirty dishes that have to be handwashed and dried. That would be hell for me.

"Unbelievers will go to hell and to eternal punishment in a fiery pit." Jesus used those words because He knew His listeners would quickly and easily understand the point He was making. If Jesus was on earth today, He would get my attention, not with hellfire, but by warning me that I won't want to end up in an unending kitchenful of dirty dishes that have to be handwashed and dried. That would be hell for me.

To believe that is to render all scripture meaningless, and your appalling analogy of washing dishes = hell renders His sacrifice on the cross to be no more meaningful that drying while you wash. But then we know that all that business of the cross actually meant he was really just building houses.

It's just more of the same modern idea that text only means what I think it means. The plain and clear words of language really have no meaning, and it allows people to avoid unpleasantness by simply changing what the statement plainly meant. It's nothing more than a cheap escape hatch.

So in a court of law Wondergirl says, "I was not even in town the day the bank was robbed." The judge then says, "You're guilty. I just heard you say that you robbed the bank, or at least that's the meaning I got from your statement." Well, if you can rob the words of Christ of meaning, then a judge certainly should be able to do that with yours.

To believe that is to render all scripture meaningless
Huh? What's hell for you wouldn't be hell for me, and vice versa. Hell as a "fiery pit" is an analogy.

Says you. Jesus never indicated that. You have a habit of rendering every verse that makes you uncomfortable into an analogy. It certainly is not called for here, and if you can do that here, you can do it anywhere, thus making scripture meaningless. I just prefer to take Jesus at His word.

No way you could end up in that fiery pit eh JL? Where will you end up? Just asking for your position. Me, I have too many flaws beyond the ability to translate the meaning of the words of ancient man. Too much can be lost in that TRANSLATION. We are talking of Jews as well as gentiles who spoke NO English and it was translated by those that do, well after the fact.

One would have to assume they were that good which frankly I cannot, and humans are notorious for filling in gaps with their own logic... flawed as it may be. I get more from a personal relationship with a God that I can understand than the interpretations of people long dead, or those that are here now and clearly flawed. Maybe they had good intentions writing it all down, to the best of their ability, but if you want TRUTH, you should consult the source, and listen to the answer. Not saying that's not what you are doing, JL, but you cannot claim your perfection in these matters while ignoring your own very human flaws. Surprising since you often acknowledge your flaws, but cannot accept them in others.

It's not the responsibility of others to express ones position so YOU can understand it, and maybe agree, but yours to understand them, agree or not. Having said all that, I am hardly perfect in expressing my position either, and find not understanding the position of others leads to a poor dismissive attitude, but I am working on that. That's why I don't dismiss the words of ancient man, nor do I completely embrace them. Hopefully more will be revealed and I can find that understanding and have faith in it. Lack of understanding is sometimes a serious flaw I know I must work on.

Not easy with all the other flaws I have to work on. Just more proof I am human.

No way you could end up in that fiery pit eh JL? Where will you end up? Just asking for your position.

Read the Ephesians passage I quoted above for your answer to that one. It is absolutely my only hope.


Too much can be lost in that TRANSLATION. We are talking of Jews as well as gentiles who spoke NO English and it was translated by those that do, well after the fact.

So you don't believe in ANY ancient history? I ask that because none of it was written in English, so if translations are really that unreliable, then all of ancient history is lost. For that matter, the United Nations is dead in the water since every major speech made there is translated into many, many languages.

Of course that is not true, and the New Testament, believe it or not, has FAR greater textual evidence for its reliability than any other work of ancient times. Nothing else even comes close. And with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament has been shown to have an extraordinary level of reliability.

I do appreciate your comments about listening well to others as that is an area where I could stand to improve. I try to be careful with my words so as not to be misunderstood. Having been a teacher for years, I feel I should be able to convey my thoughts accurately, but it is not always easy as you well know.

Well sometimes you do sound like a teacher talking to students, old habits are hard to break I suppose, and that's very understandable, so I can hardly hold that against you, nor criticize you for it.



So you don't believe in ANY ancient history? I ask that because none of it was written in English, so if translations are really that unreliable, then all of ancient history is lost. For that matter, the United Nations is dead in the water since every major speech made there is translated into many, many languages.

I wouldn't go that far, but clearly the more we learn of the ways and language of the ancients the better we understand our ancient selves. The UN though is a good thing I think, as humans congregating peacefully for a common cause is a GOOD endeavor, though it is a works in progress STILL.

Says you. Jesus never indicated that. You have a habit of rendering every verse that makes you uncomfortable into an analogy. It certainly is not called for here, and if you can do that here, you can do it anywhere, thus making scripture meaningless. I just prefer to take Jesus at His word.
The thought of hellfire doesn't make people uncomfortable; it's meaningless to someone in 2018. Jesus used that vivid picture back then because His listeners were very familiar with the valley, Gehenna, a place of fire and torment and child sacrifice, a cursed place. Jesus knew His listeners would instantly understand what He was talking about.

ADDED: How can Christians get that message across to people today, people who chuckle when the words "cursed" and "hellfire" are mentioned?

I think you are afraid to post your positions on judgement, who will be judged, and what will the consequence of that judgement be.

This thread is about YOUR belief that unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Stop trying to divert the discussion. If you wish to discuss other beliefs, start a new thread.


What do you think Paul means in Ephesians 2 when he says, speaking of the Ephesian Christians, "and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." What does it mean that they were (past tense), "children of wrath, like the rest of mankind"?

Clearly, he does NOT mean unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell.


And then what does he mean when he says shortly after, "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works..."

Clearly, and obviously, he does not mean unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell.

I thought by now you would see the absurdity of your belief. God gave you a brain - use it.

The thought of hellfire doesn't make people uncomfortable; it's meaningless to someone in 2018. Jesus used that vivid picture back then because His listeners were very familiar with the valley, Gehenna, a place of fire and torment and child sacrifice, a cursed place. Jesus knew His listeners would instantly understand what He was talking about.

The thought of hellfire does not make people uncomfortable?? Well, you plainly live in a different world than the one I live in. Even the people on this board react strongly to it. I do agree that Jesus could have been drawing on the idea of Gehenna, but far more because of its direct relationship to hell, and to illustrate that hell will be a terrible place, not a place of dishwashing. The story of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar further reinforces the idea of a burning hell.

And then there is this passage from 1 Peter. "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-5.htm)if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-6.htm)if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-7.htm)and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-8.htm)(for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-9.htm)then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.

The thought of hellfire does not make people uncomfortable?? Well, you plainly live in a different world than the one I live in. Even the people on this board react strongly to it. I do agree that Jesus could have been drawing on the idea of Gehenna, but far more because of its direct relationship to hell, and to illustrate that hell will be a terrible place, not a place of dishwashing. The story of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar further reinforces the idea of a burning hell.
You must not watch much tv or play video games or read dystopian novels. "Hellfire and damnation" et al. are frequent threats that pop up and have become part of everyday conversation and even are jokingly referred to. And obviously, you've never experienced the hell that is a kitchenful of dirty dishes that must be hand washed and dried -- much less an ENDLESS number of them to hand wash and dry.

Everyone has a different definition of hell.

This thread is about YOUR belief that unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Stop trying to divert the discussion. If you wish to discuss other beliefs, start a new thread.

Like I said. Afraid to take a position.


You must not watch much tv or play video games or read dystopian novels. "Hellfire and damnation" et al. are frequent threats that pop up and have become part of everyday conversation and even are jokingly referred to. And obviously, you've never experienced the hell that is a kitchenful of dirty dishes that must be hand washed and dried -- much less an ENDLESS number of them to hand wash and dry.

Yes. I'm sure Jesus was referring to video games.

Like I said. Afraid to take a position.
As I said, Hell is a subjective experience. What would be Hell for me (obviously) isn't Hell for you. Jesus used fire in His description of Hell because that what his listeners were very familiar with, in particular because of nearby Gehenna, and because fire was very much a part of their daily lives. They knew fire is hot and hurts when touched and will destroy property and people. Maybe because of the recent and current wildfires in the US, we are returning to an understanding of what fire can do. Maybe the term "hellfire" will recapture the meaning and import it used to have.

Hell for me was the dufus getting elected and sucked up to Kim, Vlad, and that sheik guy who murdered a reporter, an American resident, and cut the body into pieces worse than those ISIS lunatics. If that's not hell, then what is?

As I said, Hell is a subjective experience.

That is what you said. It is not what Jesus said.

That is what you said. It is not what Jesus said.
Yes, He did. As I carefully explained, Jesus always used words and language His hearers could identify with.

No, He didn't. You show me where Jesus said hell is a subjective experience and I'll agree with you. All you've shown is where YOU said that.

Not trying to be obstinate, but what you posted was their belief about Jesus. Their belief about salvation includes the following: "Salvation is attained now the same way it was then: we must have faith in Jesus Christ....
Yes, I posted their belief about salvation, which includes Jesus.

**********
Carol: As I said, Hell is a subjective experience.


jlisenbe: That is what you said. It is not what Jesus said.
Carol: I didn't say it was what Jesus said. Jesus used words and language that his listeners could relate to. That's subjective.

Jesus used words and language that his listeners could relate to. That's subjective.

So Jesus did not say hell was subjective. At least we can agree on that.

So Jesus did not say hell was subjective. At least we can agree on that.
But maybe that's what He meant. ;)

Happy Thanksgiving, JL!

=jlisenbe;3825525]The story of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar further reinforces the idea of a burning hell.

The Lazarus story is not to be taken literally. It's a parable. In your idea of hell, Lazarus would hardly be talking to father Abraham.


And then there is this passage from 1 Peter. "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-5.htm)if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-6.htm)if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-7.htm)and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-8.htm)(for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-9.htm)then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.

"Condemned to extinction", EXTINCTON is not eternal punishment.
"Until the day of judgment", not ETERNAL punishment.

This is a good example how you misunderstand the plain meaning of words by adding your own ideas that simply aren't present.

Can we apply those same "extinctions" of man to the modern towns and cities that are wiped out by floods, fires, and earthquakes?

"Condemned to extinction", EXTINCTON is not eternal punishment.
"Until the day of judgment", not ETERNAL punishment.

This is a good example how you misunderstand the plain meaning of words by adding your own ideas that simply aren't present.

Uhm... actually, I did not give my understanding of the meaning. I simply quoted the text, so it would be helpful if you would give up your prejudices and read a little. The only person who has added their ideas to that passage is you.

Hope all of you have a great Thanksgiving!

The Lazarus story is not to be taken literally. It's a parable. In your idea of hell, Lazarus would hardly be talking to father Abraham.

A great many people do not agree with your assessment. Parables typically do not have named characters and do not have this level of detail. I tend to take it as a literal story, but I wouldn't be dogmatic about that. One way or the other, hell is portrayed as an eternal punishment.

I think the problem with your position is a lack of scripture which teaches that hell is not a literal place of eternal punishment. Do you know of any passage which teaches that?

Essentially you are talking about the afterlife, which we know nothing about, so not surprising humans fill those unknowns with myths and stories to understand what we don't understand. Those who fear death, a natural part of being human, worry excessively about the next plane of existence. I would think it misleading to get locked into such ideas so absolutely, and be distracted from the purpose of this life that we should be grateful for and celebrate with good works.

Difficult to have such a huge holiday shared by all in perpetuity, except by what we do each and everyday we live this life. May you all celebrate and bring happiness to all you know and share this life with.

Essentially you are talking about the afterlife, which we know nothing about, so not surprising humans fill those unknowns with myths and stories to understand what we don't understand.

This is what I am coming to like about you, Tal. I think you are misguided and mistaken, but at least you are willing to state unambiguously what you believe.

If the Bible is accurate, and that is a question you must first satisfy for yourself, then we actually know a lot about the afterlife.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

Essentially you are talking about the afterlife, which we know nothing about, so not surprising humans fill those unknowns with myths and stories to understand what we don't understand.
Beautifully stated! thus the biblical references to "hellfire" and "destruction," what all those evil, unChristian people deserve. Now, as a senior citizen, I've googled every which way about the afterlife. Nobody knows anything, of course (even Lazarus didn't give us a report), but speculation runs wild and includes bathrooms, teleportation, wearing clothes/not wearing clothes, all who end up in Heaven are age 33, animals/no animals -- fascinating stuff from people (Christians!) who really don't have a clue.

And I believe God is a bigger and more loving deity that we can ever imagine, so am guessing there are all sorts of surprises in store for us.

am guessing there are all sorts of surprises in store for us.

Quite likely.

I have no doubt the accuracy of the bible in its time, nor the feelings of hope for which it was written for those that needed to believe in something greater than themselves they could put faith in. It doesn't take much to see what ancient man dealt with from OTHER humans, nor the devastation and turmoil visited on the peoples at a whim. I think modern man having more knowledge of himself and his world has gotten quite beyond the alliterate colorful languages that ancient man engaged in and communicated with. The gaps of the unknown have been continually filled in with facts that often contradict feelings and speculations. One cannot ignore the evolutions of the human condition in the last few thousand years, at least to the extent we interpret the ways of the ancients. After all one cannot find order amongst chaos on a long term basis without some sort of drawing the masses along with custom and tradition, process that is reliable. Not only the Christian bible but all the religious works of the world that seek to fill that very human need.

I suppose it's okay to be the sheeple of the good shepherd who provides grass and protection from the wolves who would feed on them, such is the nature of the wolf, but to assign such absolutes to anything has it's own consequence. I just believe man must always grow beyond his present form, and history says we do, as we strive to be better and no way can that be achieved without remembering what we were, and how we screwed up, and do better than we did. Faith and belief are such personal things so you must forgive me if I don't just take your word, or that of your bible and seek my own answers. Yeah, I could be wrong, but so could you.

Wouldn't that be something if we met in the afterlife, and we were BOTH wrong?

8D

I have no doubt the accuracy of the bible in its time, nor the feelings of hope for which it was written for those that needed to believe in something greater than themselves they could put faith in.\

It just comes down to a simple proposition. If the Bible is true, then we know a lot about many things, including the afterlife. If the Bible is not true, then we know very little.

How would you be able to know the Bible was accurate in its time?

we know a lot about many things, including the afterlife.
What "a lot" do you know about the afterlife?


How would you be able to know the Bible was accurate in its time?
I don't think "accurate" or "true" is the correct word to use in describing the Bible. It's made up many different styles of writing, including allegory, poetry, wisdom literature, parable, history, prophecy, law, fiction, and narration, so it must be interpreted and understood in the context of those styles.

What "a lot" do you know about the afterlife?

Read the book of Revelation and you'll find out a lot.


I don't think "accurate" or "true" is the correct word to use in describing the Bible.

If it's not accurate, then it's inaccurate. If it's not true, then it's untrue.

It seems to me that someone who thinks the Bible isn't true is under a misapprehention

It seems to me that someone who thinks the Bible isn't true is under a misapprehention
Accurate and true like this?
Psalm 98:8 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/psalm/98/) 8Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy;
Isaiah 55:12 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/isaiah/55/) 12You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.

Read the book of Revelation and you'll find out a lot.
As our pastor taught us, the general thrust of the apocalyptic genre is that its subject matter is primarily concerned with a crisis in the author's present time. For Ezekiel and Zechariah, the crisis was the Babylonian exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity). For the earlier swath of Jewish apocalypses, it was the Maccabean Revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt). For later apocalypses such as Revelation, it was the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and its aftermath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War). (The Revelation was written in this latter time period, as were 4 Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Esdras#4_Ezra) and 2 Baruch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Apocalypse_of_Baruch).)
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/9052/was-the-revelation-written-in-code-to-hide-it-from-the-romans

Accurate and true like this?
Psalm 98:8 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/psalm/98/) 8Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy;
Isaiah 55:12 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/isaiah/55/) 12You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the treesof the field will clap their hands.

Yes, there are portions of the Bible that are clearly meant to be taken figuratively, but then to say that it must be true of the entire Bible is an enormous mistake. The Ten Commandments, for instance, are plainly not figurative. I think you prefer the figurative, non-literal approach because it allows you to insert your own ideas into the Bible rather than the other way around.


As our pastor taught us, the general thrust of the apocalyptic genre is that its subject matter is primarily concerned with a crisis in the author's present time.

Several problems: 1. There was no crisis during the time Revelation was written other than what typically went on, which was the persecution of the church. You contended earlier that it was Nero, but he died thirty years prior. 2. Your pastor also believed that Revelation was written in some mysterious, lost code, which is ridiculous on the face of it. Having broken both the German and Japanese military codes in WW 2, it is impossible to imagine that some imagined code of Revelation would remain hidden. 3. The passages in chapters 4 and 5 are clearly a depiction of heaven with no reason at all not to take them as literal. 4. John's presentation in Revelation is that practically all of it was a "revelation" of heaven and the future, initiated by Jesus Himself, including seven letters to churches. Of course, maybe he was lying.

Yes, there are portions of the Bible that are clearly meant to be taken figuratively, but then to say that it must be true of the entire Bible is an enormous mistake. The Ten Commandments, for instance, are plainly not figurative. I think you prefer the figurative, non-literal approach because it allows you to insert your own ideas into the Bible rather than the other way around.
Whaaaaaaattttt????? Then saying I say WHAT? I prefer the WHAT????

You must have glossed over my earlier comment:

"It's made up many different styles of writing, including allegory, poetry, wisdom literature, parable, history, prophecy, law, fiction, and narration, so it must be interpreted and understood in the context of those styles."


Several problems:
Yup. Please do more research on this. Maybe I'll invite dwashbur to visit this thread.

Yup. Please do more research on this. Maybe I'll invite dwashbur to visit this thread.

So far as I can tell, the only research you have done is to quote your pastor. I don't mean that to sound ugly, but you might want to do some research yourself before you recommend I do so.


"It's made up many different styles of writing, including allegory, poetry, wisdom literature, parable, history, prophecy, law, fiction, and narration, so it must be interpreted and understood in the context of those styles."

That's a fair enough statement until you begin to say that the Bible is not accurate or true. That's where you part company with many people.

So far as I can tell, the only research you have done is to quote your pastor. I don't mean that to sound ugly, but you might want to do some research yourself before you recommend I do so.
It wasn't a quote from my pastor; it was a quote from a hermeneutics site, and I posted a link to that hermeneutics site. If I post links, then I'll be accused of not having faith and not using the brain God gave me. I've spent much of my life reading the Bible and being open-minded, have done critical thinking regarding various points of view, have researched, especially the teachings of other Christian churches.


That's a fair enough statement until you begin to say that the Bible is not accurate or true. That's where you part company with many people.
I didn't say the Bible isn't accurate or true.

As our pastor taught us,

It wasn't a quote from my pastor;

I was just going off what you posted.


I didn't say the Bible isn't accurate or true.

I don't think "accurate" or "true" is the correct word to use in describing the Bible.

Again, just going on what you said. If the Bible is not "accurate" or "true", then what is it other than inaccurate and untrue?


If I post links, then I'll be accused of not having faith and not using the brain God gave me.

Not by me.

Now I fully understand why literalists have problems dealing with those of us who may use the historical-critical method of reading and understanding what the Bible is telling us.

You aren't reading what I write. Instead, you're "jumping the shark."

I quoted from that hermeneutics link. That wasn't a quote from my pastor, but he said pretty much the same thing, as evidenced by my preface, "as our pastor taught us."

Even you don't believe everything in the Bible is "accurate" and "true." And I gave you examples.

Guess I'll post a plethora of applicable links.

I quoted from that hermeneutics link. That wasn't a quote from my pastor, but he said pretty much the same thing, as evidenced by my preface, "as our pastor taught us."

Fair enough. I could contend that you worded your statement poorly, but that's fine.


Even you don't believe everything in the Bible is "accurate" and "true." And I gave you examples.

No, you did not. You gave examples of scriptures that were meant to be taken figuratively. That by no means shows they are not accurate or true. When Jesus said He was the gate by which the sheep would enter, He was not literally saying He was a gate or that we were literally sheep. It cannot be taken to mean that, but He was quite accurate and true in what He was expressing. He is the "gate" by which we "sheep" enter by faith and become a part of His "flock". But when He makes a clear statement about hell, there is absolutely no reason to suppose he was not speaking literally unless, of course, a person simply doesn't like the idea of hell. And that is, frankly, where I think you are. Again, I don't intend that in a mean way, but rather in an honest way. When you find a Bible statement you don't like, it seems to me that you run to the escape hatch of figurative language, and I think you are in error in doing so.

Fair enough. I could contend that you worded your statement poorly, but that's fine.
Or we could contend that you have no interest in understanding what a dependent clause is.


No, you did not. You gave examples of scriptures that were meant to be taken figuratively.
I had said:
"It's made up many different styles of writing, including allegory, poetry, wisdom literature, parable, history, prophecy, law, fiction, and narration, so it must be interpreted and understood in the context of those styles."


That by no means shows they are not accurate or true. When Jesus said He was the gate by which the sheep would enter, He was not literally saying He was a gate or that we were literally sheep.

I didn't say anything about gate and sheep! YOU did! And I totally agree with that comparison that Jesus made.

I have no problem with Hell, but what it is leaves much to be explained. Okay. What is YOUR definition of Hell?

P.S. Have you ever seen the Michelangelo fresco behind the altar in the Sistine Chapel?

Perhaps we should switch this thread to the religion section

Or we could contend that you have no interest in understanding what a dependent clause is.

Ha! OK. Fair enough.

What examples were you referring to? I took that to mean the two scriptures you noted from Psalms. Did you mean something else?

I realize you did not refer to the passage about Jesus and the sheep. I simply used that as an example of a text which must be taken figuratively.

Clete, I have wondered myself how we got from aircraft carriers to where we are.

Ha! OK. Fair enough.
I KNEW it, I KNEW it!!!!

What examples were you referring to? I took that to mean the two scriptures you noted from Psalms. Did you mean something else?
Psalms and Isaiah? Yes, unless those things really happen. I can give more examples, if you want them. :D All would have to do with "allegory, poetry, wisdom literature, parable, history, prophecy, law, fiction, and narration."

Perhaps we should switch this thread to the religion section

Going from any subject and ending up at the bible is the very definition of a bible thumper… and I use the term affectionately, as who can be surprised by it?

Any doubt that if Jesus were here we would have Medicare for all, and he would work to heal and comfort everybody?

Psalms and Isaiah? Yes, unless those things really happen. I can give more examples, if you want them. :D All would have to do with "allegory, poetry, wisdom literature, parable, history, prophecy, law, fiction, and narration."

Now you know better. There is a difference between figurative language and inaccuracy or untruth. You are an editor and unfamiliar with these things?


Any doubt that if Jesus were here we would have Medicare for all, and he would work to heal and comfort everybody?

He didn't have it or advocate for it while He was here, so why would I think He would have it now? I think he would tell Tal, WG, and JL to love our neighbors. You think He would tell us to exercise tyranny over our neighbors with your brand of mandatory charity.

Now you know better. There is a difference between figurative language and inaccuracy or untruth. You are an editor and unfamiliar with these things?
Not all of those are in figurative language.

Um, "editor and unfamiliar with these things?"

When you give Caesar his due he does what he wants and that would include Medicare for all. Jesus said so. You can volunteer for whatever you want.

When you give Caesar his due he does what he wants and that would include Medicare for all. Jesus said so.

No He did not. Never mentioned Medicare. Never said anything about what Caesar did with taxes. He simply said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Thankfully in America we get to voice our ideas about what is to be done.

No He did not. Never mentioned Medicare. Never said anything about what Caesar did with taxes. He simply said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Thankfully in America we get to voice our ideas about what is to be done.

Has the point been lost on you that Jesus offered built in "medicare", however in the rush to have a state church it got lost in the shuffle along with many other things and the church found it necessary to reintroduce tithing. Caesar wasn't interested in healing anyone

Jesus offered "built in Medicare"? How did He do that?

No He did not. Never mentioned Medicare. Never said anything about what Caesar did with taxes. He simply said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Thankfully in America we get to voice our ideas about what is to be done.

So you oppose the government helping it's citizens, while let's face it, churches and charities leave many behind, as it's a huge job? As you see I'm a big fan of our government putting people before profits, and I think that's a good thing. A bag of groceries and a sermon, is not a bad thing, but diagnosing and getting treatments for disease and medical conditions both of the mind and body would be great.

I BELIEVE Jesus would support that had he known.


Has the point been lost on you that Jesus offered built in "medicare", however in the rush to have a state church it got lost in the shuffle along with many other things and the church found it necessary to reintroduce tithing. Caesar wasn't interested in healing anyone

The current American "Caesar" doesn't seem to have an interest in serving his citizens with things they need either, preferring to enrich his cronies, friends, and family, and ignoring the masses, but he's a proven lying, cheating, dufus with a big mouth, and craves power. There is a growing support for Medicare for all here that may soon catch us up with the rest of the civilized countries of the world. More states have voted to expand there Medicaid system with the last election so there is a glimmer of proof that Caesar may have a growing interest in healing people.

So you oppose the government helping it's citizens, while let's face it, churches and charities leave many behind, as it's a huge job? As you see I'm a big fan of our government putting people before profits, and I think that's a good thing.

Or put more accurately, you are in favor of coerced charity. Rather than Tal having to help the poor yourself, you would rather enable the dems to buy votes by forcing other people to help the poor. Jesus did not voice support for your position. He did tell us that we are to love our neighbors, and when we see someone in genuine need, to do something about it. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the GS did not go get a government official to help, as you propose, but provided help himself.

I'm a little surprised that you guys have not gone back to the OT for your support of taxpayer funded charity. In the OT there was a tithe that was intended solely for the support of the poor. It was 10%, but was only collected every third year, and was administered by the Levites. Maybe we could support something like that, a limited program into which everyone who has a job is required to pay in 3% (10% divided by 3) of his/her income for the express purpose of welfare. Instead, we BORROW money for this unlimited welfare funding which is completely out of hand.

Honestly, I would come much closer to supporting taxpayer charity if it was done responsibly and targeted towards those who are truly physically or mentally unable to work, but we all know that's not what is being done. It is largely a waste of money providing for those who don't want to have to support themselves, and is little more than a means of providing liberals with a "holier than thou" sense of superiority for forcing other people to do what they are usually not willing to do themselves, which is to actually help those in need. And that's not to mention a method for democrat politicians to get the vote of lower income people by appearing to be their saviors.


he's a proven lying, cheating, dufus with a big mouth, and craves power.

Hillary Clinton is not a "he", she's a "she". I assume that's who you are talking about.

Your translation of my words is grossly inaccurate and your post does not reflect the words of your savior or bible. I find no love in your posts and honestly smacks of hate and judgement. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your Christian views or position, and the main reason I cannot in good conscious join the club. The good news is that not all Christians are as hard core and selfish as you are and they may well TRUMP your own views of being your brothers keeper.

I'll take the last sentence as a snark retaliation as I know you don't assume whom it is I referenced. I write what I mean and mean what I wrote. I bear no ill will to any that can correct my facts though. Who's perfect?

Your translation of my words is grossly inaccurate and your post does not reflect the words of your savior or bible.

I am the only one who quotes Jesus or the Bible, so I don't really understand how I am not reflecting His Words. But I am open to being shown in what way that is the case.

You think I am selfish because I do not advocate for a federal government that will take someone else's money to do charitable work? Selfishness refers to self. I am all for me helping the poor and I assure you I do so. I am not for forcing others to do so. Your statement is really a reflection of the deception of liberalism. "I am unselfish because I make others engage in charity."

The last sentence was intended to be light-hearted. Loosen up a little.

Your statement about viewing me as hateful and judgmental bothers me. First of all, your statement is a judgmental one if I've ever heard one, so perhaps you should refrain from what you accuse me of. But beyond that, perhaps I am not expressing my views accurately. Some of you have said that Jesus advocated, essentially, for Medicare. That is just not true. Jesus actively helped the poor, but He did not suggest any of us should compel others to do so, and that is, to me, the core of our disagreement. I quite vigorously believe that those who are healthy, which is certainly most of us, should support themselves and not depend on others to do so. That is not hateful, but in fact respectful, since I seem to be the only one here who actually seems to believe they are fully capable of doing so. Do we sometimes find ourselves in a hole and need help in getting out? Yes, and I understand that, but that should not be typical in our lives.

I would be interested to know what, specifically, you disagree with.

Acts 20:35 -- In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Phil. 2:4 -- Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
I Thess. 5:11 -- Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
Gal. 6:9 -- And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.
Luke 8:3 -- And Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.
Gal. 2:10a -- All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor.

**************
One of the purposes of a federal government is to levy taxes on all the citizens so that those citizens will all benefit in some way. Medicaid is one of those benefits. No one in my family ever needed government money for healthcare until my mother lived into her mid-90s and outlived her savings. She applied for Medicaid and was able to spend her last year or two being well taken care of in a nursing home close to her sons' families. If it hadn't been for Medicaid, I don't know what would have happened and where she would have lived and who would have taken care of her.

Honestly, I would come much closer to supporting taxpayer charity if it was done responsibly and targeted towards those who are truly physically or mentally unable to work, but we all know that's not what is being done. It is largely a waste of money providing for those who don't want to have to support themselves, and is little more than a means of providing liberals with a "holier than thou" sense of superiority for forcing other people to do what they are usually not willing to do themselves, which is to actually help those in need. And that's not to mention a method for democrat politicians to get the vote of lower income people by appearing to be their saviors.

Let's start here then since welfare has been administered by both dems and repubs so why is it just a liberal fault? If it was such a waste of money, what should one do as an alternative when one finds themselves neither qualified or connected? Have you ever looked into the process or helped a deserving person through it? I doubt it since it is a fairly rigorous thing to apply for welfare, Let alone receive it, and of course we cannot forget the qualifications process to move from welfare to work. Have you assisted anyone in that endeavor? Sermons don't cut it, actions do. So yes I totally disagree with the assertion of your posts that all poor people are lazy. Most have jobs but are stuck by conditions, circumstances and personal issues. You mean all those vets that are homeless are lazy too? What about the mentally challenged, or the kids of the WORKING poor, or the OLD? Are they lazy too, or undeserving? Last I checked able bodied people are REQUIRED to work under the law, so according to you, both dems and repubs are guilty of not following the law, right, and the last 8 years its been repubs administering welfare not dems, so lets just drop the easy from the lips partisan talking points from the politicians and get with reality... CAESAR (Our government, of the people), fully support a social safety net befitting the greatest nation on the Earth.

So good luck getting votes from all those PEOPLE you judge undeserving, and call names. Who votes for a jerk that badmouths them? You got life and BS all mixed up. Next I guess you will blame recessions (And all the bad stuff), on poor folks!

So yes I totally disagree with the assertion of your posts that all poor people are lazy.

OK, first of all, I have never, ever said that all poor people are lazy, nor have I even intimated that. A little honesty on your part would be helpful. I am not responsible for your imaginations.

As to the rest of your rant, I have repeatedly said that the mentally challenged should get assistance as well as children, so it would be nice if you would get over being angry.


and the last 8 years its been repubs administering welfare not dems,

Obama was in for six of those years, so unless he appointed republicans, and we know he didn't, that was dems doing the administering.


and call names.

Good grief. If you are going to accuse others of name calling, you might want to clean up your own act first. You are the absolute number one name caller on this board. We could start with "The Dufus", but it certainly doesn't end there.


Wondergirl, thank you for listing scriptures which point out the voluntary nature of charity and the amazing value of hard work. And please note that nowhere in those scriptures is there a call for the government to take money from one person FORCIBLY and give it to others.


One of the purposes of a federal government is to levy taxes on all the citizens so that those citizens will all benefit in some way. Medicaid is one of those benefits.

Medicaid is paid from Social Security funds, not from general tax revenues. So far it is being paid for in good shape, but the future does not bode well. As to the purpose of the fed gvmt, you are partly right, but partly wrong. The feds are to provide for "the general welfare". In other words, do that which benefits everyone, but not that which benefits individuals at the expense of others. That is a relatively recent development for the feds.

Wondergirl, thank you for listing scriptures which demonstrate that charity is to be voluntary and that we are to work hard so that we can support others.
My point was that we are told that we are all in this together. Sometimes you will need help, and "WE" will help you. Other times, I will need help, and "WE" will help me.


Medicaid is paid from Social Security funds, not from general tax revenues.
Medicaid is not paid out by SS.
"Medicaid is a program that is not solely funded at the federal level. States provide up to half of the funding for the Medicaid program. In some states, counties also contribute funds. Unlike the Medicare program, Medicaid is a means-tested (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means-tested), needs-based (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needs-based) social welfare (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_provision) or social protection (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security#Social_protection) program rather than a social insurance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_insurance) program." (Wikipedia)

Here is the concern. The growth of welfare spending is not sustainable. I'm open to suggestions, but it cannot continue.

49108

My point was that we are told that we are all in this together. Sometimes you will need help, and "WE" will help you. Other times, I will need help, and "WE" will help me.My point was that we are told that we are all in this together. Sometimes you will need help, and "WE" will help you. Other times, I will need help, and "WE" will help me.

That's a nice idea, but my point was that your scriptures do not, in any way, call for a government system of welfare. It is a call for the church to support it's own members, or even outsiders, and that's wonderful, but it does not call for me to force you to spend money on charity.

I'll add a little to that. I actually agree with you 100% and your description is wonderful. That, however, is an admonition to the church, not to the government. That is where our difference lies. Within the confines of the church it is a wonderful thing. The giving is voluntary and the receiving is closely monitored. The government is just the opposite. The giving is mandatory and the receiving is quite the opposite of closely monitored.

Your reply to the Medicare funding taught me something, so well done! However, it is just not sustainable unless we all want to get ready to pay a LOT more in taxes. 21 trillion of federal debt should alarm all of us.

government system of welfare
But that's what we as a country have decided would work best and would demonstrate that we're all in this together. When you need help, we all will help you, and when Joe Blow in Colorado needs help, you and me and everyone will pitch in to help him.

Well there goes that 40 billion dollar super duper aircraft carrier. What does scripture have to do with government anyway?

But that's what we as a country have decided would work best and would demonstrate that we're all in this together. When you need help, we all will help you, and when Joe Blow in Colorado needs help, you and me and everyone will pitch in to help him.

If it was that simple it would be nice, but it's not. It's to the point that it is an incentive not to work, so I am arguing for a return to self responsibility. And I still cannot get away from the idea of what gives any American a right to take money from any other American.

Let me ask you this. Would you be OK with a plan to allow those of us who do not agree to simply opt out of that system? I won't pay in, and I won't be able to receive payments either. My choice. Do you think that would work?

Hasn't so far

Let me ask you this. Would you be OK with a plan to allow those of us who do not agree to simply opt out of that system? I won't pay in, and I won't be able to receive payments either. My choice. Do you think that would work?
Hospital and physician charges are astronomical. Nursing home monthly charges are breathtaking. What would you do if you were over 65 and hospitalized, then sent to a rehab facility or nursing home? How would you pay for it all?

Capitalism is great, eh?

Hospital and physician charges are astronomical. Nursing home monthly charges are breathtaking. What would you do if you were over 65 and hospitalized, then sent to a rehab or nursing home? How would you pay for it all?



Your reply to the Medicare funding taught me something, so well done! However, it is just not sustainable unless we all want to get ready to pay a LOT more in taxes. 21 trillion of federal debt should alarm all of us.

I wonder how other countries not as great as us have managed all these decades.

Hospital and physician charges are astronomical. Nursing home monthly charges are breathtaking. What would you do if you were over 65 and hospitalized, then sent to a rehab facility or nursing home? How would you pay for it all?

That would be my problem, as it should be.

If you want to talk about the ridiculous cost of medical care, that would be a great conversation to have. Socialized medicine does not solve it.

Interesting to me that liberals often raise the complaint that we evangelicals should not force our moral values on others, but that's what you are doing when you force everyone to pay to satisfy your moral inclinations in this area.

If you want to talk about the ridiculous cost of medical care, that would be a great conversation to have. Socialized medicine does not solve it.
Please start a new thread. I'm angry at hospitals, doctors, and Big Pharma.


Interesting to me that liberals often raise the complaint that we evangelicals should not force our moral values on others, but that's what you are doing when you force everyone to pay to satisfy your moral inclinations in this area.
No, we Christians should not force our moral values on others. Instead of talking about why too many people are paying $90,000+ a year to live in a nursing home, perhaps we should first solve the ridiculous cost of medical and health care. What do people in other countries pay?

No, we Christians should not force our moral values on others

But that's what you are doing. I'm not criticizing you for it, but just trying to make a point that everyone wants their moral values written into law.

Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/medicare-all-money-left-over-buy-aircraft-carrier-two-841662-post3825685.html#post3825685)
If you want to talk about the ridiculous cost of medical care, that would be a great conversation to have. Socialized medicine does not solve it.


Seems to have solved things in every other country!

https://www.finweb.com/insurance/average-health-insurance-cost-by-country.html




nteresting to me that liberals often raise the complaint that we evangelicals should not force our moral values on others, but that's what you are doing when you force everyone to pay to satisfy your moral inclinations in this area.

You are mixing RELIGION and Government which in the USA goes against the separation of church and state. Roy Moore lost his job over it remember.

But that's what you are doing. I'm not criticizing you for it, but just trying to make a point that everyone wants their moral values written into law.
It's far beyond "moral values." Why do we send thieves and murderers to prison? They've broken two of God's commandments. Aren't those two offenses against our moral values?

You are mixing RELIGION and Government which in the USA goes against the separation of church and state.

But we've just gone through about three pages of posts from people wanting to assure us all that Jesus was all for Medicare. You listed six scriptures to show that we should all chip in our taxes to pay for Welfare. What a mixing of religion and politics that is!


It's far beyond "moral values."

What is beyond moral values? Moral values are rooted in truth. I don't see anything, other that God Himself, as being beyond them.

How could Jesus not be in favor of Caesar taking care of poor, sick, people in need and call it Medicare? Wouldn't that be like a conversion or something? Or at least a good thing? Or do you have to be saved or something to do good deeds, or have moral values?

And it's not politics but self governance. Politics is the antics of humans who try to convince you to vote for them.

How could Jesus not be in favor of Caesar taking care of poor, sick, people in need and call it Medicare? Wouldn't that be like a conversion or something? Or at least a good thing? Or do you have to be saved or something to do good deeds, or have moral values?

And it's not politics but self governance. Politics is the antics of humans who try to convince you to vote for them.

Let us get history right Tal, there was no evidence Caesar was in favour of taking care of anyone but himself and as the family became more degenerate this became more obvious. The social agenda is a method of enforcing rule on the masses. Caesar used bread and circuses, you don't go to the games you starve, we are more subtle, distributing food vouchers and medical care, but we know that if we didn't the level of disorder in our society would be intolerable. Caesar only had a few million to contend with.

Jesus on the other hand healed all who came to him and never extracted one coin in payment, if only our medicos could learn to do the same

How could Jesus not be in favor of Caesar taking care of poor, sick, people in need and call it Medicare?

Jesus focused His attention on His church, and not on the government.

No American has a right to another American's money. Charity, to be charity, must be voluntary. Find the place where Jesus advocated one person taking money from another person by force of law. That is exactly what government welfare amounts to.

Let us get history right Tal, there was no evidence Caesar was in favour of taking care of anyone but himself and as the family became more degenerate this became more obvious. The social agenda is a method of enforcing rule on the masses. Caesar used bread and circuses, you don't go to the games you starve, we are more subtle, distributing food vouchers and medical care, but we know that if we didn't the level of disorder in our society would be intolerable. Caesar only had a few million to contend with.

Jesus on the other hand healed all who came to him and never extracted one coin in payment, if only our medicos could learn to do the same

I clearly used Caesar in the context of our current governments which model a cooperation between church and state while respecting the separations of both. Let's also recognize Jesus was a Jew, and promoted the Jewish religious traditions, and customs even as he passively threatened the establishment hierarchy structure. Would there be a Christianity without the martyr? We don't know do we.

Jesus focused His attention on His church, and not on the government.

No American has a right to another American's money. Charity, to be charity, must be voluntary. Find the place where Jesus advocated one person taking money from another person by force of law. That is exactly what government welfare amounts to.


Welfare is NOT charity, it's a function of government for citizens it deems in need, and that's the flaw in your argument, is you conflate charity and welfare. They are not the same, and neither is the exclusive domain of religion. Indeed many organizations exist to assist the citizens beyond just the church. You have your vote, and others have theirs and that's what makes our country exist, not a religious proclamation.

Trying to get around what your savior said makes no sense to me, but humans can be nonsense, as the vote for a lying, cheating, dufus clearly illustrates. The coalition of white evangelicals and right wing racists loonies is indeed the strangest thing I have ever seen.

it's a function of government for citizens it deems in need,

Definition of charity: giving to those in need. Your distinction is only made because it assists your political position. It is charity pure and simple.


Trying to get around what your savior said

If you ever can tell me what Jesus said about government welfare, I'll be glad to respond, but what Jesus referred to was voluntary charity, not government taxation.


The coalition of white evangelicals and right wing racists loonies


Inaccurate, statement on the level of referring to a coalition of "black Christians and left wing, black-nationalist radicals".

Like you say Jesus focused on his church, not government, but giving Caesar his due was a profound recognition of the governments domain. That the people can vote for that government in current times makes a difference? What should humans do when their church is INADEQUATE in it's charity?

Talk to me when you can feed ALL the children. Shelter all the strangers. Until then pay your taxes, and casts your votes, and do the best you can. Seems you would be grateful for a government that fills the gaps your church cannot in what is obviously a shared endeavor, whether you call it charity, or welfare.

but giving Caesar his due was a profound recognition of the governments domain.

I don't think so. I think it was just an injunction to pay your taxes and nothing more.


What should humans do when their church is INADEQUATE in it's charity?

Maybe they should engage in charity themselves rather than forcing their neighbor to.


Seems you would be grateful for a government that fills the gaps your church cannot in what is obviously a shared endeavor, whether you call it charity, or welfare.

I don't think that is a proper role for the feds. When the feds do something, it just constantly grows until it becomes a monster. For instance, the original Social Security contribution rate was 1 percent of pay, which was matched by employers. The tax rate grew to 1.5 percent in 1950 and gradually increased to about 5 percent by 1978. The current tax rate of 6.2 percent has been in effect since 1990. Bear in mind that this comes from both the employer AND the employee, so it is really substantial compared to the original 1%.

I don't think so. I think it was just an injunction to pay your taxes and nothing more.

Could be, but needless to say given the Roman occupation great advice, and for modern times as well, without the occupation. Be it Caesar or Sam the consequences are great for not paying taxes.


Maybe they should engage in charity themselves rather than forcing their neighbor to.

Who is they? Like I said until the church can do more, somebody else has to step up. Come on man, as a volunteer you should know the welfare process as well as anyone and you can't make people volunteer, and they still have to have resources besides a good word.


I don't think that is a proper role for the feds. When the feds do something, it just constantly grows until it becomes a monster. For instance, the original Social Security contribution rate was 1 percent of pay, which was matched by employers. The tax rate grew to 1.5 percent in 1950 and gradually increased to about 5 percent by 1978. The current tax rate of 6.2 percent has been in effect since 1990. Bear in mind that this comes from both the employer AND the employee, so it is really substantial compared to the original 1%.

Look around, everything has grown and become more expensive, and people have gotten older. Just imagine the poor communities with small churches that are scuffling for resources and only have the feds. Fascinating idea though that YOUR government shouldn't help it's citizens.

Fascinating idea though that YOUR government shouldn't help it's citizens.

Actually, I think that each citizen should help other citizens. It is not the role of the federal government. When politicians do that, they extend it to everyone possible so as to gain votes.

But if you, or whoever, want to argue for government charity, for forcing some citizens to give their money to other citizens, then go for it, but when you say that you have Jesus backing you up, you are in error.

It's the counties that decide who gets assistance and at what level so your issues are with your local government.

It's the counties that decide who gets assistance and at what level so your issues are with your local government.

I wish that was truly so, but it would still amount to taking money from one American by force to give to another.

When politicians do that, they extend it to everyone possible
It's based on income. Who would you leave out of those who qualify?

I wish that was truly so, but it would still amount to taking money from one American by force to give to another.

It is so. Your local county officials are the administrators of welfare in YOUR state, mine too, and throughout the nation. You can check for yourself, and it's been that way since 1991.

http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/Ch2Blank0404.pdf

It's based on income. Who would you leave out of those who qualify?

I would leave out anyone who is both mentally and physically capable of supporting him/her self. I would phase it in over a period of two or three years. They certainly have no right to any other American's income.


It is so. Your local county officials are the administrators of welfare in YOUR state, mine too, and throughout the nation. You can check for yourself, and it's been that way since 1991.

I went to your link even though I suspected from past experience it would be futile. First thing I noticed was that the paper was written fifteen years ago, well before the Obama administration had opportunity to make changes. Even at that, in the first few pages I noted the repeated use of the word "mandated". States do administer the program, but are tied to federal regs in doing so.

Before you get too excited about all the wonderful "free" goodies in Europe, you might want to check out the tax rates.

49109

You pay for what you get, nothing is free

Everything is tied to a federal regulation my friend that's how the USA works isn't it? I have been noting your problem processing and corelating my data, and sorry for that, but unless you are familiar with the changes the Obama administrations made to welfare regulations then you would know that states, yes even some republican run states REQUESTED waivers to implement educational and vocational training as a component and tool to get people off the welfare roles particularly during a recession where jobs where scarce and non existent.

Of course the right wing loony machine didn't care that everybody was out of work, and millions of jobs were lost, because rich guys screwed up the global economy, and the welfare roles were swelling, if you couldn't get a job, you got no assistance. Fortunately during the silly season of 2012 nobody listened to the repubs crying foul and Obama was reelected and the plan was put forth to grant those waivers with the CONDITION they could they increase employment in their state by 20%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act



In July 2012, the
Department of Health and Human Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Servi ces)
released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.
[11 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act#c ite_note-CityJournal-11)..
In response to Republican criticism,
Kathleen Sebelius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Servic es)said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress)to allow waivers.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act#c ite_note-Radnofsky2-17).

I gave you the first link to lay the foundation for the background so all the facts could be presented in an orderly fashion for serious discussion and debate. I know your position, much like Newts Contract with America crap in the 90's, and that's fine, but t's much more complicated and nuanced and conditions do change for many reasons.



Frances Fox Piven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Fox_Piven) said that the problem with AFDC was not a problem with the welfare system, but with low-wage work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-wage_work):



Logically, but not in the heated and vitriolic politics created by the attack on welfare, a concern with the relationship of welfare to dependency should have directed attention to the deteriorating conditions of the low-wage labor market. After all, if there were jobs that paid living wages, and if health care and child care were available, a great many women on AFDC would leap at the chance of a better income and a little social respect.[36] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act#c ite_note-compact-36)



I hope this second source helps you the first.

I hope this second source helps you the first

The first one was sixty pages and you didn't realize it was fifteen years old. Be honest. How many of those sixty pages did you read?

You were trying to make the case that the states were in charge of welfare. Your own article showed that is not true. The feds still control the regs. If you are going to give links, you might want to read the entire article and not just cherry pick what strikes you as useful.

It still comes down to one American being authorized to take money from another American. I don't think they should have that authority.

WRONG! I actually studied the whole PDF years ago, and many more like it (Including the entire ACA). Similar to you quoting scripture, but my research is much more contemporary. It's my impression that you think states are sovereign and separate from the whole, and by that thought there is no USA just 50 nation states, independent of the United States. Both my references point to the fact of states having a great deal of flexibility and latitude and a process to address the individual concerns of each state in an orderly lawful manner. Each state is different and has a variety of different issues, and are free to find reasonable solutions, so sorry if you think that what works in your state should be the law in all of them strictly and rigidly applied. Life isn't like that unfortunately, and as you know when stuff happens by man or nature, adjustments must be made to survive and endure. That's just reality.

Now you can elect your own state reps and federal representatives that promote your views, and if they fail vote them out, but stop blaming the feds for what your locals are doing, or find out what they are indeed doing for you in your name, and change it if it's not to your liking. Are you some Tea Party leftover or something? I know some want a weaker smaller central government, some want a streamlined effective one, so complaints from all sides which is fair, but sorry you haven't convinced me at all to convert to your position, which should be okay with you as it's still an open mike and you can sing any song you want.

Put simply your premise that one American cannot take money from another to give to another is way off. The consensus of Americans (both repubs and dems) sets aside assistance to other Americans in difficult times, conditions, and circumstances, so we don't have people starving and dying in the streets. That's the social safety net that we agree on by compromise and consensus. I respectfully submit, that repubs have not had the VOTES or sufficient support to repeal any of it though they had input in constructing it, administering it, and modifications over the years. So stop blaming liberals for what we have in place since it was a collaboration so yes the FEDS do have a right to govern and you have the right to beetch!

I get it, you hate government, but government has the AUTHORITY to tax for the common good. That's just reality, and who likes that?

It's my impression that you think states are sovereign and separate from the whole, and by that thought there is no USA just 50 nation states, independent of the United States.

How you got that idea I just don't know. It was not from my comments, but I do commend you for taking the time study the material.


Put simply your premise that one American cannot take money from another to give to another is way off. The consensus of Americans (both repubs and dems) sets aside assistance to other Americans in difficult times, conditions, and circumstances, so we don't have people starving and dying in the streets. That's the social safety net that we agree on by compromise and consensus. I respectfully submit, that repubs have not had the VOTES or sufficient support to repeal any of it though they had input in constructing it, administering it, and modifications over the years. So stop blaming liberals for what we have in place since it was a collaboration so yes the FEDS do have a right to govern and you have the right to beetch!

Not too sure about the collaboration part, especially if you look at the vote on Obamacare. Yes, Welfare has been voted in and the American people, for the most part, are somewhat comfortable with it. I am free to raise my voice against it, and that's what I'm doing. I'm all for Tal, Wondergirl, Athos, Tomder, me and others helping the poor. I am opposed to the government forcing us to engage in it. And here we are, over 21 trillion in debt because we want to spend on anything and everything but not pay for it. It's this idea that "If I think we need it, then we just have to do it," that has gotten us in this hole. There is no level of taxation that will deliver us without ruining the economy, so we have to cut spending. It cannot be done with the defense budget alone. It won't even get us close, so we have to start looking at everything, and a good place to start is to tell those who are physically and mentally healthy, "Support yourself". Discourage the idea that fatherless families should be the norm and get back to real families working together to take care of themselves. Continuing this fantasy will not get it done.

Yes, Welfare has been voted in and the American people, for the most part, are somewhat comfortable with it.
Applying for Medicaid is not a walk in the park.

In her early 90s, my own mother, a lifelong Republican, outlived her carefully saved money and had no choice but to apply for Medicaid (welfare) so she could move into a nursing home. My two brothers and their wives lived near her and helped her as long as they could while she lived at home, but her personal needs became too involved and complicated, thus the nursing home.

Her BIL (my uncle), also Republican, lived near me, ran through most of his hard-earned savings of $250k over a five-year period in a nursing home. That facility, a good Christian nursing home, refused residents who couldn't pay out of pocket and would need Medicaid (welfare). My son and I moved Uncle, who still had a few shekels left, to a facility that accepted Medicaid which I then applied to for him. (Apply for Medicaid someday -- an exhausting and somewhat humiliating experience. Be sure you are able to show financial history.)


I am free to raise my voice against it, and that's what I'm doing. ... I am opposed to the government forcing us to engage in it.

If our country doesn't have a welfare system, then what will happen to the elderly, disabled, chronically ill, and all those who don't have the money to keep themselves alive? Maybe we'll have to set up each with a donation can along the public sidewalks.

21 trillion in debt didn't come from helping poor people. Nobody is forcing you to do anything except pay taxes, and abide by the law, and the way you handle your poor people is between you and your county officials. It is a complicated process I grant you that, between feds, state and local, and not just about welfare, but on many fronts, including state investments and resource allocations. I can hardly blame anyone for not knowing the intricacies of such financing at all. That's the collaboration I was speaking of.

Lets look at that vote on Obama care opposed by repubs, and currently those repubs have gotten the boot and another election cycle looms, so yes health insurance and a social safety net, jobs and WAGES, are important to young, old, poor and well to do, because everybody can get laid off, like those GM workers in 3 states, or the plant closures because of technology, or slumping sales, or the rich guys steal the money and screw everybody. Or your town burns up, or gets wiped out by a force of nature. Or a husband runs off with a stripper, we all need a SOCIAL SAFETY NET. You are aware those assistance benefits have limits don't you, and conditions don't you? Of course you do I linked the FACTS right here on this forum.

If the church and charity could help everybody we wouldn't need a social safety net, would we? If we knew how to keep families together would that help working poor families? I just don't think so. If you have a Walmarts Super Center, then your city gave them a tax break, and subsidizes its low paying workers through your public assistance programs. That's just reality of low paying jobs by multinational billion dollar corporations.

Funny you don't squawk about that at all, but I understand it's complicated right? So I guess going after poor folks is all you can do, like the are the cause of all the ills in this country! Good Luck making people stay married and going back to the American dream of "Leave It To Beaver". That was just a feel good TV show and not even close to reality for the masses.

Now if Ward Cleaver got laid off and June had to hock the pearls to buy groceries that would be real.

21 trillion in debt didn't come from helping poor people.

A LOT of it did, about 22 trillion in the last fifty years, which just so happens to be about the amount of the federal debt, and yet the poverty rate remains unchanged. That 22 tril is more than 3 times the total amount we have spent on all the wars in our history.


Nobody is forcing you to do anything except pay taxes,

Uhm... that's kind of what we're talking about here.


everybody can get laid off, like those GM workers in 3 states, or the plant closures because of technology, or slumping sales, or the rich guys steal the money and screw everybody. Or your town burns up, or gets wiped out by a force of nature. Or a husband runs off with a stripper,

A lot of people have these things called "savings" and "insurance" to handle most of that. So we get to put our money into savings and insurance, and then pay even more in taxes to bail out the folks who DON'T save or insure.

Your comment about the rich stealing the money is just ludicrous. I've already shown you that the top 1% of wage earners earn 20% of the income but pay 40% of the taxes. And you call that "stealing"??


If we knew how to keep families together would that help working poor families? I just don't think so.

I think you do. Two parents working together is fantastically more efficient that one working. The math is pretty simple.


going after poor folks is all you can do,

You and your groundless accusations get old. I've never said anything to that effect, so if you want to discuss this, then at least try to be honest and accurate. I'm not "going after" anyone other than the people who love to pat themselves on the back for forcing others to pay into their favorite charity.

Two parents working together is fantastically more efficient that one working. The math is pretty simple.
What about people like me who stay home for 12 years to raise their kids to be honest, respected, and hard-working members of society?


lot of people have these things called "savings" and "insurance" to handle most of that.
No savings -- we lived paycheck to paycheck. As for insurance, we had auto insurance (state requirement), homeowners, and life insurance ("burial insurance") on the kids.

Math is not your best subject.

What about people like me who stay home for 12 years to raise their kids to be honest, respected, and hard-working members of society?

That's great, and I'm happy for you, but what do you say to the couples where the wife worked part-time/full-time so the couple could put aside some savings? Should they have to pay extra in taxes to support you in case of an emergency where not having savings came back to bite you?


Math is not your best subject.

Could be, but I can figure this one out pretty easily. One person makes 30K, so the family has 30K. Two people make 30K each, so the family has 60K, which is a lot more than 30K. Make sense?

I really, really, really hope you are not going to try to make the argument that single parent homes make good economic sense because you will be engaging in total foolishness.

That's great, and I'm happy for you, but what do you say to the couples where the wife worked part-time/full-time so the couple could put aside some savings? Should they have to pay extra in taxes to support you in case of an emergency where not having savings came back to bite you?
Should my husband and I pay taxes to help support those other couples you mentioned if they need financial help (welfare)? Yes. We're all in this together, and that would be the right thing, the unselfish thing, to do. Someday someone in my family or friend group might need financial help in return.

Should my husband and I pay taxes to help support those other couples you mentioned if they need financial help (welfare)?

So you didn't answer the question. You can be evasive with tough questions. You know I am asking why a couple who DID have the wife work so they DID save, and yet they still have to support you. Does that sound right to you??


Yes. We're all in this together,

We're all in this together? So if I need to use your car, should I be able to just go by your house, demand the key, and take it when I want to? That might sound extreme, but it is exactly what you propose. I get the feds to go to your house, collect your money in taxes, and deliver it to me.


and that would be the right thing, the unselfish thing, to do

You are imposing your moral values on others.

You don't answer my questions either. For instance, what will you do about paying for a nursing home once you've gone through all your savings? In my area, monthly cost is around $7,000 for a semi-private room.

Keep the person at home. Do what you have to do. Won't be fun, but people do it all the time.

One more time. You chose to stay at home, which is wonderful, but you said you had no savings. Another wife chooses to work, and the couple are able to save, but they also have to pay extra in taxes to help you in case an emergency arises for which you had not prepared. Is it right for that wife to have to pay for her family AND your family?

Keep the person at home. Do what you have to do. Won't be fun, but people do it all the time.
We DID keep her at home for several years, but her care finally went beyond what we could do to make her comfortable and get her to and from her doctors.

And when the couple who worked and has savings runs out of money, the husband has health problems and can't care for his bedbound wife, then what?

Ask many questions, but answer none.

Ask many questions, but answer none.
Nor do you. :D

If you're mad now that poor people get your tax money, then your head will really explode when we move to Medicare for all.

yo
u don't answer my questions either. For instance, what will you do about paying for a nursing home once you've gone through all your savings? In my area, monthly cost is around $7,000 for a semi-private room. Long term care insurance ? I bought my policy 20 years ago when starting premiums are cheaper . No real good answer . I do not recommend having to go to a state or local Medicaid nursing home . They suck . Patients are not given good care . Unless you plan well ahead of time by moving assets to trusted family members the state will swoop in and pretty much seize everything you own. So set up a variety of Trusts years before you need the care ;at least 5 years before applying for Medicaid so you can shelter your assets before the 'Look back period '.

I'm not taking sides on the morality . I am just looking at the cold hard facts
The Medicaid expansion is an unmitigated disaster It is busting state budgets faster than before Obamacare .It will consume $7 trillion in the next decade ;and that is just a start . As baby boomers enter the program it will be a nation wide budget buster . The hard choice will be taken away from the patient . The system will decide your worth regarding life and death .And when the government decides there aint likely an appeal process you can trust .

If you're mad now that poor people get your tax money, then your head will really explode when we move to Medicare for all. and there is the problem . As long as you can pass the expense to the next generation ;Saul Good Man .

Nor do you. :D

Actually, look up about four posts and you'll see you are wrong.


Keep the person at home. Do what you have to do. Won't be fun, but people do it all the time.

One more time. You chose to stay at home, which is wonderful, but you said you had no savings. Another wife chooses to work, and the couple are able to save, but they also have to pay extra in taxes to help you in case an emergency arises for which you had not prepared. Is it right for that wife to have to pay for her family AND your family?

and there is the problem . As long as you can pass the expense to the next generation ;Saul Good Man .

Maybe the next generation will be smarter than us and MORE fiscally responsible. Or maybe they won't need a trillion dollar fleet of military yachts, or won't be dog eat dog capitalists. I know 4 car plant towns that will be on the welfare rolls soon.

boo hoo.
If GM was allowed to go belly up years ago ,another car maker would've picked up their market share ,and probably more .
Tariffs on steel and aluminum ;NAFTA II favoring mfg in Mexico .Trump can blame himself also . Poor GM management ;poor quality sedans . The whole brand is dysfunctional . GM has been bailed out almost too many times to recalled .If they get bailed out again they will squander it again. If GM can't make it on their own ;let them fail

Welfare for all and another town bites the dust.

Shows you the value of $50 billion bailouts . Tax payer dollars pissed away by a leviathin government choosing winners and losers . Thank the emperor's and Bush's TARP.

You have to wonder, does it matter, new industries arise to fill the void, the US auto makers withdrew from Australia and we hardly notice they are gone but then we aren't prone to rust belts as you are. We no longer foot the bill for an uneconomic industry, even though strategically it was important. What I marvel at is places like Sweden can have efficient industries competing against the world and the supposed centres of innovation can't

You have to wonder, does it matter, new industries arise to fill the void, exactly . All you have to do is look at Pittsburg's Renaissance.https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-13/pittsburgh-shows-the-way-to-a-rust-belt-rebound

Sweden can have efficient industries competing against the world and the supposed centres of innovation can't.

State subsidized.

State subsidized.

Really and the US auto industry isn't state subsidised? Anyway, maybe there is a lesson to be learned about how to do the job

Really and the US auto industry isn't state subsidised? Anyway, maybe there is a lesson to be learned about how to do the job

Yep. There's a lesson to be learned all right. Saab went belly-up in 2011 and is no longer in existence to manufacture cars. Makes some military aircraft for Sweden, but that's about it.

Yep. There's a lesson to be learned all right. Saab went belly-up in 2011 and is no longer in existence to manufacture cars. Makes some military aircraft for Sweden, but that's about it.

What can I tell you, exotic machinery, but there are many auto manufacturers who have disappeared and some who survive and thrive and the lesson might be that you need to put some precision into what you make.

Looking at the list there are more defunct auto makers in the US than anywhere else, what does this tell us?

It tells me they relied too much on government subsidies and bailouts . For a long time the idiotic saying was 'What's good for General Motors is good for the USA .

GM did bad forecasting . While American consumers made it clear a long time ago that they prefer SUVs and light trucks ;GM continued to try to compete in the small sedan market (which Japanese auto industry owns in the USA because of their reliability ) . Now GM trucks sell well . And maybe GM sedans do well over seas . But with idiocy like aluminum and steel tariffs and renegotiated NAFTA that favors car production in Mexico,why shouldn't GM move their sedan manufacturing closer to the point of distribution ?

One other thing ;when are we going to get rid of the idiotic electric car subsidy ? They may be the peak of innovation (especially the plug in hybrid ) . But if they can't compete in the market place without government assistance then they don't deserve to be in the market.

It tells me they relied too much on government subsidies and bailouts . For a long time the idiotic saying was 'What's good for General Motors is good for the USA .

GM did bad forecasting . While American consumers made it clear a long time ago that they prefer SUVs and light trucks ;GM continued to try to compete in the small sedan market (which Japanese auto industry owns in the USA because of their reliability ) . Now GM trucks sell well . And maybe GM sedans do well over seas . But with idiocy like aluminum and steel tariffs and renegotiated NAFTA that favors car production in Mexico,why shouldn't GM move their sedan manufacturing closer to the point of distribution ?

One other thing ;when are we going to get rid of the idiotic electric car subsidy ? They may be the peak of innovation (especially the plug in hybrid ) . But if they can't compete in the market place without government assistance then they don't deserve to be in the market.

Well Tom I suppose you haven't heard of AGW and that the US along with others isn't going to meet its Paris targets (UN data), but then you aren't trying since Trump took it off the table. Electric cars will be the norm so SUV will have to fall in line, I don't like the idea, hard to find a charging point in the wilderness but if you insist in driving gas guzzling monsters until your coast line sinks below the waves who am I to persuade you otherwise. What I know is that one day you won't be able to afford to fill them and you will go back to something more in tune with your pocket

Shows you the value of $50 billion bailouts . Tax payer dollars pissed away by a leviathin government choosing winners and losers . Thank the emperor's and Bush's TARP.

Yeah let them fail and what would we do with all those jobless workers? Sure we had a whole bunch of unemployed and entire towns gutted, but a controlled process was sure better than everybody walking around saying what happened. Look back at the Global collapse, auto companies were but a part of it, the banks was the major part of the collapse, remember AIG?

https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-obama-economy-robert-reed-110-biz-20170109-column.html



But this much is clear: Outgoing President Obama is leaving President-elect Trump a pretty impressive Inauguration Day present: A strong, functional U.S. economy.


What have we learned? Instead of a process of well thought out unwinding and a transition to ease the pain and be stronger, we have a dufus who gives away money to rich fat cats with no incentives to do anything but take the money and run which makes his tax cuts and trade policy fiscally irresponsible. He shares much of the blame with the feckless congress though who let him do it, and say nothing.

A perfect example of profits over people.

But this much is clear: Outgoing President Obama is leaving President-elect Trump a pretty impressive Inauguration Day present: A strong, functional U.S. economy.


Funtional, yes. Strong?? Nope. Obama is the only two term pres who never had a single quarter of 3% or higher GDP growth. And please don't tell us how bad it was when Obama came in. It was worse for Reagan, but the economy took off and grew impressively under his pro-growth policies.


gives away money to rich fat cats with no incentives to do anything but take the money and run

Rich people don't become rich by hiding their money in the backyard. They invest that money, and the investment allows businesses to expand and increase employment as well as earning investment income for the wealthy person. It's one of those great moments when everyone wins.

There is something I don't understand about the GM situation. If I was a GM employee, I would be one of the first to say, "Suppose we all take a 20% pay cut? Would that help keep this plant open and lower the price of GM cars so as to increase sales?" I wouldn't like a 20% pay cut, but it would be much better than a 100% pay cut, and yet that never seems to be done. The last I heard, it costs the Big Three about 75 dollars an hour to employ a worker. I don't see how that can be sustainable, but you never seem to see management and the union come together for the benefit of everyone.

Funtional, yes. Strong? Nope. Obama is the only two term pres who never had a single quarter of 3% or higher GDP growth. And please don't tell us how bad it was when Obama came in. It was worse for Reagan, but the economy took off and grew impressively under his pro-growth policies.[?QUOTE]

http://checkyourfact.com/2017/08/31/fact-check-trump-claims-gdp-never-hit-3-under-obama/

[QUOTE]
Although the economy never reached annual growth of 3 percent under Obama, quarterly growth did surpass 3 percent eight times during his presidency. The highest growth recorded was 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014.


Guess we have to wait on the data from the dufus 8 years, if he lasts that long.


Rich people don't become rich by hiding their money in the backyard. They invest that money, and the investment allows businesses to expand and increase employment as well as earning investment income for the wealthy person. It's one of those great moments when everyone wins.

And the workers staying poor on welfare makes them a winner? How much did your city pay for Walmarts? Why do Walmart workers need vouchers and food stamps from your money? At least you could tell the whole story and not just repeat the rich guy talking points.

Correct, and that was my mistake. However, it remains true that he never had a single year of 3% GDP, and is the only two term pres of whom that is true. So it is still difficult the say that was a "strong" economy.


President Donald Trump claimed that annual economic growth never reached 3 percent under former President Barack Obama in a speech (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/30/remarks-president-trump-tax-reform-springfield-mo) on tax reform Wednesday.
Verdict: True
Gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of goods and services produced in the U.S., never rose 3 percent annually under Obama, although there were eight separate quarters where GDP grew by more than 3 percent.



And the workers staying poor on welfare makes them a winner? How much did your city pay for Walmarts? Why do Walmart workers need vouchers and food stamps from your money? At least you could tell the whole story and not just repeat the rich guy talking points.

Interesting how you automatically go to Walmart. What about other companies that expanded and have driven unemployment down to well under 4%? If it stays that low, wages will go up just due to competition for employees.

Rich guy talking point? How about a little bit of common sense? Why are you so afraid of a "win-win" arrangement? Not to mention that you, I, and others can invest and profit from healthy economy.

Well Tom I suppose you haven't heard of AGW and that the US along with others isn't going to meet its Paris targets (UN data), but then you aren't trying since Trump took it off the table. Electric cars will be the norm so SUV will have to fall in line, I don't like the idea, hard to find a charging point in the wilderness but if you insist in driving gas guzzling monsters until your coast line sinks below the waves who am I to persuade you otherwise. What I know is that one day you won't be able to afford to fill them and you will go back to something more in tune with your pocket

You really buy into that horse manure ? As for the price of gas ;if and when that becomes an issue


Yeah let them fail and what would we do with all those jobless workers? Guess they will have to find something else to do.....or to move where the jobs are. That has always been the American way. Did you not see my link to Pittsburg revival ? Same thing happened on Long Island NY when Grumman and Republic stopped being the major employer . WTF work and where you live isn't a guarantee . Libs should stop whining about it waiting for the government to fix their problems .

There is something I don't understand about the GM situation. If I was a GM employee, I would be one of the first to say, "Suppose we all take a 20% pay cut? Would that help keep this plant open and lower the price of GM cars so as to increase sales?" I wouldn't like a 20% pay cut, but it would be much better than a 100% pay cut, and yet that never seems to be done. The last I heard, it costs the Big Three about 75 dollars an hour to employ a worker. I don't see how that can be sustainable, but you never seem to see management and the union come together for the benefit of everyone.
It isn't really about the workers salaries . GM and other auto makers have to forecast what the market will be BEFORE they tool up their plants . GM bet on sedans and electric cars (probably because the government owned shares of GM after TARP) The American consumers have chosen SUVs and light trucks as their transportation of choice. So now GM had to make a call ....could they retool the existing plants or make the cars they mostly sell overseas closer to their projected market ? Also ;I can't emphasis enough how much of a disaster the steel and aluminum tariffs are to the auto and soon many other industries . It was a disaster the last time it was tried . But Trump is so committed to this protectionist folly that he will not see how terrible call it was.
http://www.tradepartnership.com/pdf_files/2002jobstudy.pdf

It isn't really about the workers salaries . GM and other auto makers have to forecast what the market will be BEFORE they tool up their plants . GM bet on sedans and electric cars (probably because the government owned shares of GM after TARP) The American consumers have chosen SUVs and light trucks as their transportation of choice. So now GM had to make a call ....could they retool the existing plants or make the cars they mostly sell overseas closer to their projected market ? Also ;I can't emphasis enough how much of a disaster the steel and aluminum tariffs are to the auto and soon many other industries . It was a disaster the last time it was tried . But Trump is so committed to this protectionist folly that he will not see how terrible call it was.

Interesting comments. I see your point, but if salaries across the board were lower, car prices would lower and that would give GM a competitive edge. I'm not sure about the steel and aluminum tariffs. It will certainly be a boost to the steel and aluminum industries here.


Libs should stop whining about it waiting for the government to fix their problems .

Exactly right. Libs have bought into the false idea that government is here to make our lives happier and easier. No, government should serve four functions: 1. national defense. 2. establish a good system of courts. 3. preserve peace internally. 4. promote the general welfare.

Nowhere in that list do we see any notion of making us happy and giving us easy lives. That's our job, individually.

Read the Constitution all 4 are in there and more.

Read the Constitution all 4 are in there and more.

I was basically quoting the preamble of the Constitution. There are six basic functions of the federal governemnt listed. I gave you four. The first is very general and refers to the old Articles of Confederation being inadequate. The sixth refers to the future preservation of liberty. Perhaps I should list it as well, but it seems more looking to the future than the present. At any rate, here they are:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_no te-1) promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It will certainly be a boost to the steel and aluminum industries here. IT did boost the steel industry a little the last time it was tried under GW Bush . But it so negatively impacted the rest of the economy ;especially industries that use steel like auto and construction ,that they were dropped in less than 2 years . 200,000 workers in U.S. manufacturing lost their jobs as a result of the tariffs. For comparison, the entire U.S. steel industry employed 197,000 at the time.

It really makes sense to let a guy with many bankruptcies, and no credit at the banks in the town he lives in, run fiscal policy for the country! We sure got what we paid for... a lying, cheating dufus who does some really stupid stuff.

Yeah. We could have had that paragon of virtue, Hillary Clinton. Thank goodness she's never done any lying or cheating, not to mention being responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi

It really makes sense to let a guy with many bankruptcies, and no credit at the banks in the town he lives in, run fiscal policy for the country! His financial advisors are outstanding especially his Chief of Economic Advisors Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore .

It really makes sense to let a guy with many bankruptcies, and no credit at the banks in the town he lives in, run fiscal policy for the country!

Hard to argue with the results. He's miles ahead of where Mr. Obama had us in his eight years.

His financial advisors are outstanding especially his Chief of Economic Advisors Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore .

Followed them for MANY years, total supply siders, so no surprise you love them.


Hard to argue with the results. He's miles ahead of where Mr. Obama had us in his eight years.

You must be near sighted.

Followed them for MANY years, total supply siders, so no surprise you love them. damn straight . AND they are free traders . Hoping they talk Trump out of his disasterous trade polices towards our allies . China ? They need some areas of their trade abuses smacked down.