Check out some similar questions!

Wondergirl · Nov 24, 2018, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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?

jlisenbe · Nov 24, 2018, 06:39 PM

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.

talaniman · Nov 24, 2018, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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/ave...y-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.

Wondergirl · Nov 24, 2018, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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?

jlisenbe · Nov 24, 2018, 07:42 PM

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.

talaniman · Nov 24, 2018, 09:14 PM

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.

paraclete · Nov 24, 2018, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

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

jlisenbe · Nov 25, 2018, 07:04 AM

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.

talaniman · Nov 25, 2018, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

talaniman · Nov 25, 2018, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

jlisenbe · Nov 25, 2018, 07:45 AM

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".

talaniman · Nov 25, 2018, 08:22 AM

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.

jlisenbe · Nov 25, 2018, 12:38 PM

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%.

talaniman · Nov 25, 2018, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

jlisenbe · Nov 25, 2018, 05:36 PM

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.

talaniman · Nov 25, 2018, 07:55 PM

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

jlisenbe · Nov 25, 2018, 08:13 PM

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.

Wondergirl · Nov 25, 2018, 08:24 PM

When politicians do that, they extend it to everyone possible

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

talaniman · Nov 25, 2018, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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

jlisenbe · Nov 25, 2018, 09:53 PM

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.