Moral Dilemma

[ageofknowledge]

God's not going to part any red seas for jac just because he has anxiety related worrying over a provision of his insurance contract. He didn't for me and He doesn't for the vast majority of people. He's not a gumball machine. Jac's not suddenly going to come into a fortune to pay the extensive costs associated with a maternity because he trusted God after letting his insurance go. What's going to happen is if he dumps his insurance: he'll have to finance and pay for everything himself. If every major evangelical pastor in America is OK with having their children delivered and their insurance company pay for it despite the abortion provisions standard in almost all contracts today, then why should jac ruin his financial situation over it. If it's OK for them and 99.9999999999% of their congregations then in my opinion it is fine for jac. Have the delivery and move on. Create a model home for the kid so he doesn't have to end up with a life of suffering like I have had to. We don't live in a perfect world and God knows that. That's why there's grace. And vote for health care reform so poor suffering and dying people can get access to health care. Quit judging us and leaving us to twist in the wind because we fell on times so hard we can't get up lest God judge you for it someday. Health care is not tyranny. It's a necessity.

If you're responding to what I said, I don't recognize what I said tying into your reaction.

It's ok. We're all just giving our advice and opinions.

[ageofknowledge]

jac, my friend, what do you think of the philosophy behind Christian Socialism.

http://www.discussionforum.cc/df/viewto ... d3bec99eea

Christian Socialism

What Is the relationship between a Cooperative Society (CS), and religious belief? Christian Socialists, for example, analyze capitalism based on whether it is a fair and just system, in keeping with the Christian moral ethical system.

Christians and others might consider the words of Luke in the New Testament:

"All whose faith had drawn them together held everything in common: they would sell their property and possessions and make a general distribution as the need of each required" (Acts 2:44-45)

And the words of St. Ambrose in the 4th century:

"God has ordered all things to be produced so that there should be food in common for all, and that the Earth should be the common possession of all."

To be clear: life in a Cooperative Society would not require us to relinquish our personal possessions. In fact, as discussed in our PCS Q & A at the site, proper, only under a Cooperative System would we finally gain access, readily and naturally, to the material goods we need, want--and are entitled to. The value of the above quote rests in its assertion of the ideals, generally, of common ownership and distribution by need (and in our modern era of titanic abundance, we specify "want," also, not just "need"). The quotation also illustrates that the idea of a cooperative system is very old, and is, in fact, contained right in the New Testament, itself, the most modern portion of the Bible, the part believed to express the principles and teaching of Jesus.

Belief in a Cooperative Society is not meant to replace, or even compete with, belief in God. Many people with a strong religious orientation see belief in a Cooperative Society and belief in God as complementary beliefs. They recognize that, arguably, a Cooperative Society involves a better and closer expression of God-like values than a profit-based society: brotherhood, cooperation, and love!

In fact, because it is believed that Jesus instructed his apostles to "hold all things in common," some scholars consider him the founder, or first practitioner, of the Cooperative idea!

Thus are the bases upon which Christians sometimes advocate democratic Socialism, known in PCS vernacular as a Cooperative Society.

[Jac3510]

While I appreciate the ideals of Christian Socialism, I have a problem with it as a form of government. I am a major advocate of individual freedom. As a biblical precedent for this, let's look at a passage from narrative that CSs base their thinking on:

• All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. 6Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.
  
  Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
  
  About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?" "Yes," she said, "that is the price." Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also." At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events. (Acts 4:32-5:11)

Notice, AoK, that Peter makes it plain that the land and money belong to Ananias. He could have done whatever he wanted with it. His sin was not in giving only a part of the proceeds to the community. It was lying about how much he gave, implying that he gave all when he only gave a part.

This presumes that Ananias had the rights over his own things. That doesn't work in a community in which the community owns the means of production. Fundamentally, I believe in individual freedom. The "Christian socialism" we see practiced in Acts is of a voluntary kind. THAT kind I thoroughly support. Our ministers should be actively teaching and encouraging our churches to engage in this kind community support based on--and the acting out of--their love for one another. Such is what James called true religion. I do not believe it should have the power of government behind it, however. To take from one man to provide for another is theft. We give out of love, not coersion. We then leave the results to God, however they may fall.

[ageofknowledge]

I have much more research to do on this subject. Right now it looks like the law of the jungle prevails in your political worldview. Everyone competes, by whatever means necessary, to get all they can for themselves. Those who cannot, for whatever reason (too young, sick, elderly, etc...) are left to suffer and die because that is the fate we create for them sans-aid unless someone comes by and makes a personal decision (a wee pang of conscience perhaps) to drop a couple "bits" in their tin cup from time to time which might keep a few going for a while longer. This aligns with godless Darwinianism. The rich have everything and the poor have nothing... not even life in many cases as a result. Though it seems like a perfectly natural and reasonable way to operate to the Christian right. Based on the results it produces, I must reject it as evil and mad. I'll have a more reasoned argument why it is evil and mad and why we shouldn't operate that way as a society. As Arnold said, "I'll be back."

[Jac3510]

When you do come back, be sure to deal with the fact that Peter expressly recognizes that the money belonged to Ananias, not the community. Also consider Paul's words in 2 Cor 9:7, "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

Neither Paul nor Peter want to force people to give. Nor do I. Do you?

[jlay]

AoK is dealing with a terrible disease. RA I believe?

And the frustrations he is experiencing often oozes out of my computer monitor. No question his situation greatly effects his responses.

[ageofknowledge]

Almsgiving involves giving materially to another as an act of religious virtue. This is different than a government taxing its citizenry to provide for their suvivability and well being (e.g. national defense, uncontaminated food and water, and healthcare). Romans 13 certainly does provide for the latter as the chapter points out, "for it [government] is a minister of God to you for good... For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." (NAS).

We see here and in many other places in scripture that it is scriptural to tax, if and when necessary, to ensure the survivability and well being of citizens. And that certainly can include medical care. Scripture certainly does not forbid a government taxing its citizens so medical care can be provided to its citizens. And according to scripture those with the ability to earn have a responsiblity, in obedience to God, to pay those sorts of taxes.

Trying to argue that because the apostolic church, who found themselves in the midst of a famine as I understand it though whether they were or not is really besides the point, were welcoming alms as an argument that governments cannot levy a tax to provide medical care for its citizens is illogical, myoptic, and inaccurate.

I would argue, based on my reading of scripture, that if the citizenry have become so corrupted by materialism that they simply will not provide for their own sick suffering poor then God may elect to use the government as an instrument for good due to their gross negligence.

I suggest you read 'Healthcare Ministry: Refounding the Mission in Tumultuous Times' by Gerald A. Arbuckle with special attention to how both the church and the state can be involved in a scriptural way with providing medical care.

Someone tried to use the Law of Moses recently to convince me that God was against government having the right to deliver medical care to its citizens. I had to laugh. The Law of Moses certainly did provide for "government healthcare" in the context of that place and time. The concept of health and provision for sickness occurs in the Law of Moses and the ancient Israelites theocratic government was compelled, at that time, to force all of the provisions for health care found in the Law of Moses upon the ancient Israelites. The guy was talking out of ignorance.

Your arguments that government is commanded by God and scripture to stand aside and let millions of its citizens suffer and die without any intervention because the apostolic church permitted almsgiving is built on a false premise and it comes as no surprise the results of such a morally inappropriate position result in great harm to those whom Jesus himself personally taught not to allow that kind of harm to come to.

The results of providing zero medical care or assistance of any kind in this country for those who cannot afford it in a purely profit driven model without exception, not even for sick and crippled children, the disabled (or soon to be because they have no access to medical care), or elderly that cannot work would result in a holocaust of suffering and death for millions of people because forcing these people to rely strictly on alms has never and will never prevent it. When you use pharisaical logic to align yourself with that result, then you are culpable for that negative result.

I am reminded of the story in Luke 6 and Luke 13 where Jesus heals despite the myoptic ungodly emphasis of the scribes and Pharisees on the breaking of the letter of the law. They didn't get it and neither do most of you. Just like the man with the crippled hand in Luke 6 I have a crippled hand and the other one is on the way out as we speak. I certainly can empathize with Jesus position.

Like I said previously, the reality of your position being fully enacted is that the poor go untreated while those with means get the medical they need. After all, they have means while the poor do not. Yet Jesus chose to stop and heal the poor unnamed woman before heading over to rich Jarius's house and He also rebuked a system that offered preferential treatment for those like Jairus who have power, status and money yet leave poor suffering people to suffer and die without treatment. He recognized the universality of pain and suffering and healed both the woman and Jairus' daughter. The Mishna (Qidushin 4:14) lists doctors as being among the hated professions in Jesus day. This is because they gave preferential treatment to the rich and neglected the poor exactly like we see today. Jesus spoke continually about this disparity and it is clear He supported meeting the needs of both. Jesus was not against government. Rather, he was against corruption, selfishness, and greed. Jesus gave humanity guidelines for living together that affect how they organize to govern themselves which scripture records in the Sermon on the Mount, the Four Gospels, and in Jesus' parables.

For example, the Beatitudes provide a dizzying commentary designed to turn upside down the political and social world of the Roman Empire of Caesar Augustus, the Jewish religious elite of Judea and Jerusalem, and all future government including ours today. How it is all too easy for those who enjoy the pleasures of this world to spin arguments to justify a position which favors them at the expense of others and seek to remove all government interference from their personal quest for power and money. But Jesus condemns this and offers a goodwill community which allows for free enterprise yet provides for the poor.

Government has the right to tax it's citizens to ensure their survival and well being. This is not theft. It's a fundamental responsibility of government. A fair tax to provide for the common defense, adequate unpolluted water and food, and yes healthcare is scripturally well within the right of government. There is no inappropriate application of the end justifies the means here.

And it makes economic sense for the country to have a healthy population that can work instead of a sick and disabled population. One doesn't have to have been laid off, spent their savings unable to find work, and end up disabled in a cheap Salvation Army wheelchair begging for rice and beans to grasp this if they have "eyes to see and ears to hear."

God nor Jesus or their words will be mocked. One of the recurring themes in the Old Testament, is the failure of the people and the resulting judgement. Though under a new covenant, we chose not to ensure that tens of millions of our own citizens, including a great number of Christians, had access to medical care. If our government 's entry seems forceful, it is because we negligently did not provide for the sick suffering people in need of medical care who had no means of obtaining it. We said "God bless you" and prayed for them and directed their crippled bodies to the food station instead of a place where they could get the medical care they needed. We stayed in the race to ensure that fate never befell us as it did them. But for some of us, despite our best efforts and diligent hard work: it did anyways.

I am not a socialist, though I talk to Christian socialists (not to be confused with state socialists). But I understand a government has the right to ensure its citizens have access to adequate health care. Probably the easiest way to achieve this would be to expand Medi-Cal to cover all poor American citizens with each state retaining control (not the Federal government). But that's not on the table. Obamacare is which would cover ALL Americans and some Republican reform bills are on the table that would make things easier for themselves while excluding the poor who do not currently qualify for medical care and to continue degrading the care for those that do.

Though I believe in small government and less regulation, there are exceptions. Providing for a strong national defense, health care, clean water, and uncontaminated food qualify. And government has every right to ensure these are adequately addressed.

I've laid out a very logical and moral scriptural argument for government's right to do this good and their having the right to seek the survivability and well being of its citizens regarding healthcare. If you really believe that government doesn't have a right to tax its citizens to provide for a national defense, drinkable water, eatable food, and healthcare and that everyone who believes otherwise is immoral and must suffer and die while nothing materially speaking is done for them unless someone gets it in their head to go against their own economic welfare and do something for a very small portion of them, then that is your position. I don't believe it's Biblical nor moral and representative of a Pharisitical position.

(Matthew 25:41-46).

[Jac3510]

AoK - you have misrepresented my argument. I did not say that because the apostolic church did not tax, then neither should government. I defy you to show me anywhere I said such a thing. I brought up the apostolic church with reference to Christian Socialism. Now, I don't know if you know this, but Christian Socialists DO use Acts 2 as a basis to require, through taxation, all people give. It seems you agree with me that Christian Socialism cannot be based on the description of the Apostolic Church.

Secondly, you argued from the Bible's command that we pay our taxes that the government therefore has the right to tax us to provide healthcare. That doesn't follow at all. Scripture is only recognizing a reality, namely, that government exists, and that we are under it. That means we have to pay our taxes. That does NOT mean, though, that the government has the right to tax us on whatever they want. If the government decides to use my tax dollars to murder babies, I have every right to object.

The question this is whether or not it falls within the perview of government to provide health insurance. I say no. The things our taxes go to support are things like military and police. Health insurance is a private matter. I think the Bible agrees with me here. You yourself noted that almsgiving cannot be forced. Now, tell me, which is the more basic need: food or health insurance? Clearly, food is more basic. But if the Bible treats food as a personal matter of almsgiving, how much more would it treat healthcare as a private matter?

Again, we have both Paul and Peter saying that we should give AS WE CHOOSE to those in need of food. We have NO Scriptural warrant for TAKING from people to give to others, even on the matter of food. If not of food, then, they why for health insurance? It's an aburd idea.

The proper thing to do is for Christians to form a voluntary co-op that takes care of such things. The verses you should be quoting are the ones like this:

• As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. (Gal 6:10)
  
  Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Phil 2:3-4)
  
  If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Tim 5:8)

And others. What these verses clearly teach is that it is the CHURCH'S job to take care of her sick and poor, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. The people to blame are callous Christians, not the gov't.

The difference in me and you is that you want to use the government to FORCE people to behave in a biblical fashion and to keep the Golden Rule. I don't. I trust God to take care of His people, and that includes myself when I get in a tough spot. I can promise you this--I'll never ask the government to steal anything from you to provide for my daughter. I may ask you, as a Christian brother, to help. I may beg and plead. But if you say no, I will say that it is between you and God. I won't put a gun to your head and my hand in your wallet.

[ageofknowledge]

:AoK - you have misrepresented my argument. I did not say that because the apostolic church did not tax, then neither should government. I defy you to show me anywhere I said such a thing. I brought up the apostolic church with reference to Christian Socialism. Now, I don't know if you know this, but Christian Socialists DO use Acts 2 as a basis to require, through taxation, all people give. It seems you agree with me that Christian Socialism cannot be based on the description of the Apostolic Church.

--> Ok. Np. I refocused on health care. It does appear that churches have no right to tax Christians to provide for the common welfare. However, it also appears the freedom exists for Christians to band together into communities and choose to share, to whatever extent they decide amongst themselves, for the common welfare. Enough said.

:Secondly, you argued from the Bible's command that we pay our taxes that the government therefore has the right to tax us to provide healthcare. That doesn't follow at all. Scripture is only recognizing a reality, namely, that government exists, and that we are under it. That means we have to pay our taxes. That does NOT mean, though, that the government has the right to tax us on whatever they want. If the government decides to use my tax dollars to murder babies, I have every right to object.

--> No. Scripture allows government to act as an instrument of good for its citizens and to tax them toward that end. Again, you left that part out. Regarding your second point, refer to my previous argument where I assert that actively resisting the end of one holocaust because another is occurring is simply resulting in two holocausts. The end is two holocausts. The means should be to end them both but not at the expense of one. You are very confused on this point.

:The question this is whether or not it falls within the perview of government to provide health insurance. I say no. The things our taxes go to support are things like military and police. Health insurance is a private matter. I think the Bible agrees with me here. You yourself noted that almsgiving cannot be forced. Now, tell me, which is the more basic need: food or health insurance? Clearly, food is more basic. But if the Bible treats food as a personal matter of almsgiving, how much more would it treat healthcare as a private matter?

--> The Bible does not agree with you here. Provide scripturally supported arguments showing that it does so I may qualify them. I've already shown you that the Bible DOES provide government with the right to do good for its citizens and tax them for that. I've also differentiated between almsgiving, which is a private matter, and government's right to tax for the survivability and common welfare of its own citizens. You've confused them together and drawn some very unscriptural conclusions. I keep trying to help you in this regard but you simply ignore everything that is said and rewind back to your false premise like a robot. This reveals your deep bias toward your own position despite scripture's revelation on the subject.

:Again, we have both Paul and Peter saying that we should give AS WE CHOOSE to those in need of food. We have NO Scriptural warrant for TAKING from people to give to others, even on the matter of food. If not of food, then, they why for health insurance? It's an aburd idea.

--> Again, you're wrong as I continue to explain. The church is not the government. They are different. Church almsgiving is private. Government's are instituted by God as an instrument of good to ensure the survivability and welfare of its citizens. This is reflected in the preamble to our country's Constitution: ” … establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare …" Promote the general welfare... how interesting. There it is. And this, from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Apparently our Founding Fathers read their Bibles Jac because Romans 13 is relfected in their work charging our government to promote the general welfare, which when coupled with every person's right to life and their right to pursue happiness (not easily done as a homeless cripple) certainly allows for health care to accomplish that end. Why do you continue, in the face of all this revelation, to continue to support a reality that manifests as a last-minute desperate trip to the ER which if you survive, are then hounded into bankruptcy by creditors. God forbid! May we soon hold these truths to be self-evident.

:The proper thing to do is for Christians to form a voluntary co-op that takes care of such things. The verses you should be quoting are the ones like this:

• As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. (Gal 6:10)
  
  Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Phil 2:3-4)
  
  If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Tim 5:8)

And others. What these verses clearly teach is that it is the CHURCH'S job to take care of her sick and poor, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. The people to blame are callous Christians, not the gov't.

-->Wrong. All three may play their respective role. The family, the church, and yes the government. You continue to project your bias upon scripture insisting that because Paul explains that families have a responsibility to be involved (and here you insist Churches do too where before you said there participation was voluntary) that government cannot despite scripture asserting that they can. It's not one or the other. That's in your mind. A systematic theeological approach to scripture reveals that, in reality, scripture lays out the rights and responsibilities of all three.

:The difference in me and you is that you want to use the government to FORCE people to behave in a biblical fashion and to keep the Golden Rule. I don't. I trust God to take care of His people, and that includes myself when I get in a tough spot. I can promise you this--I'll never ask the government to steal anything from you to provide for my daughter. I may ask you, as a Christian brother, to help. I may beg and plead. But if you say no, I will say that it is between you and God. I won't put a gun to your head and my hand in your wallet.

--> And now we rewind back to your biased incorrect position, that guides your every argument, that government has no right to tax its citizens to provide for their suvivability and general welfare despite scripture saying it does and our own government reflecting that.

[Jac3510]

AoK - where does the Bible say that the purpose of government is to provide food/shelter for its people?

I see plenty of verses that says that we are to obey government. I see verses that says that it carries the sword (which implies, to me, that the purpose of government is to protect us from violent people). Your assertion that the purpose of gov't, from a biblical perspective, is to provide for the financial needs of its people requires biblical evidence. I've not seen you post any.

Again, there is a difference between the Bible recognize the authority of human government and the Bible condoning or empowering certain authorities/purposes to government.

[ageofknowledge]

AoK - where does the Bible say that the purpose of government is to provide food/shelter for its people?

I see plenty of verses that says that we are to obey government. I see verses that says that it carries the sword (which implies, to me, that the purpose of government is to protect us from violent people). Your assertion that the purpose of gov't, from a biblical perspective, is to provide for the financial needs of its people requires biblical evidence. I've not seen you post any.

Again, there is a difference between the Bible recognize the authority of human government and the Bible condoning or empowering certain authorities/purposes to government.

Which Paul points out they certainly can, as I continue to point out to you, in Romans 13 verse 4 which states (NAS) that government is a "minister of God to you for good" and when you stop being myoptic and start taking the entire Bible into consideration from God ensuring healthcare for the ancient Israelites to the message and words of Jesus to scriptures like the examples I've been giving you: it is clear that government does have the right. The Bible does condone government to govern for the good of it's citizens.

It appears you just don't like that fact. I understand. There are Christians that like the Christianity of their understanding yet as they come to understand what Jesus actually was saying and teaching find they don't agree with everything He had to say. I hope you change your own view to conform to a Biblical position on this matter so that millions of suffering people can receive the help they so desperately need.

[Jac3510]

it is clear that government does have the right.

No, it isn't. It is clear that you are assuming it. There is NO biblical statement on the matter whatsoever. What there is a clear biblical statement on is the fact that I don't have the right to force you to give up something of yours to help another. The fact that you say that the church can't do that but for some reason the government can is a good example of reading in Scripture what you WANT to be there.

Now, I suggest we leave off of this conversation. We're about to get to where we were before. I've tried to lay off judgments on your personal character, and yet here you are STILL accusing me of being myopic and downright selfish. Your judgmental attitude towards fellow Christians is far more sickening than any selfishness on anyone's part I know. Jesus repeatedly said to judge not, and yet you have repeatedly set yourself up as the judge of us all who don't agree with you. You pretend to know what is in our hearts, and then, because we disagree with your METHODOLOGY of handling a problem (that we agree exists), you accuse us of not caring about the problem, and of even implicitly endorsing it.

I understand that you are in a difficult personal situation. Perhaps you should pray about how much you are letting that influence not only your reading of Scripture, but your judgmental attitude towards other Christians. You can have the last word. I assure you that I will NOT respond to you on this subject again.

[ageofknowledge]

it is clear that government does have the right.

No, it isn't. It is clear that you are assuming it. There is NO biblical statement on the matter whatsoever. What there is a clear biblical statement on is the fact that I don't have the right to force you to give up something of yours to help another. The fact that you say that the church can't do that but for some reason the government can is a good example of reading in Scripture what you WANT to be there.

Now, I suggest we leave off of this conversation. We're about to get to where we were before. I've tried to lay off judgments on your personal character, and yet here you are STILL accusing me of being myopic and downright selfish. Your judgmental attitude towards fellow Christians is far more sickening than any selfishness on anyone's part I know. Jesus repeatedly said to judge not, and yet you have repeatedly set yourself up as the judge of us all who don't agree with you. You pretend to know what is in our hearts, and then, because we disagree with your METHODOLOGY of handling a problem (that we agree exists), you accuse us of not caring about the problem, and of even implicitly endorsing it.

I understand that you are in a difficult personal situation. Perhaps you should pray about how much you are letting that influence not only your reading of Scripture, but your judgmental attitude towards other Christians. You can have the last word. I assure you that I will NOT respond to you on this subject again.

I don't have to assume it because that is what he's saying. You just don't like what he's saying. This is not disobedience to God or His word as you keep falsely asserting. Jesus's message and life in no way contradicts a government providing for the survivability and common welfare of it's citizenry but acknowledges it while urging everyone everywhere to love God and their neighbor on a personal level. You take one but leave the other which you have a myoptic prejudice for. I wish you would obtain and read that book I referenced. But you won't. Denial is more than a river in Egypt friend.

I think back to the early 1900s and how government really aligned itself to your way of thinking and all the terrible problems that resulted. Thank God for Christians who understood their Bibles properly. As a result, they organized to address to deal with those concerns. Activists in the Christian Social Gospel movement of that time forced the government to promote the general welfare in this country in the areas of public health, public education, normalized working hours and livable wages abolishing child labor and a host of other social maladies the government had permitted as it didn't want to force anything good on its populace like ending the exploitation of children, for example.

But the Christians of that era understood Jesus position toward children and government's right to act for good and so they forced government to put an end to it. Jac, your position would have resisted them because they supported government forcing businessmen who profited from children in a free enterprise system to "give up something of [theirs] to help another."

I'm glad to see you have some emotions on this issue and I know you are saved, a rightous man, and a good apologist on many subjects. I just wished they were more constructive and couched in the perfectly reasonable position which scripture teaches that government also has a right and responsibility to do good, just like people, rather than resisting exactly that outcome while maintaining that because Acts 4:33-35 describes some Christians in the Apostolic church as "from time to time" selling some land or a house occassionally and bringing the money from the sales to the apostles' feet for redistribution to the poor as the ONLY method which God and Jesus will accept to help the poor on this earth.

I call you myoptic because you have chosen that path, like the Pharisees once did, so as not to see what a ludricious position this is both scripturally and in reality and wherever it was played out in earlier centuries led to great suffering which required Christians to step up and force their government to change it. In places the didn't, a counterfeit arose in judgement to do it for them. That's how Marxism coupled with state atheism arose. Because a vaccum existed during the industrial revolution as a result of Christians not ensuring the poor, suffering, and exploited had social justice or their government acted to promote the general welfare. The lack of meaning and total absence of any laws regulating factories, public health, education, etc... created fertile ground for the devil to plant that seed. And it is exactly this vaccum that perpetuates it today around the world.

[Jac3510]

AoK,

There is an organization you may be interested in joining. "The Can-Do Conservatives", run by Brian Donegan. Here is a speech he made at the Berrien Country Republican Party on 8/15/09.



Bottom line is that he is trying to help give the disabled a voice in the conservative movement. I'm a huge supporter and have offered my full services to him in anyway I can. I know him personally. I think you'll appreciate the speech, since it won't be taken as a "them" vs. "us" mentality. No matter what I say, since I am not disabled, I'll never be able to convince you that I understand exactly what you are saying and want the same solutions you do. But as a conservative, I think you can agree with Brian that it is a shame that the disabled are de facto "represented" by the liberal democrats.

You can find him on FB. Shoot me a pm if you want more info. I'd love to help this organization get off the ground, from both a financial and man-power perspective.

And anybody who happens to think this is a good cause may be interested in getting in contact with him as well.

God bless all!

[zoegirl]

Thanks Jac, I'm going to watch it tonight