Any Christians against universal health care?

[777]

Found ths question in another board posted by someone else and it made me wonder the question of "Any Christians against universal health care?"

The person goes on to say that as a Christian (and not a religious right Christian btw, a very tolerant Catholic), he was wondering if there are any Christians who are against Universal Health care, and the reasoning behind. Simply, as a Christian, he can't understand not being for UHC.

I personally cannot see how being a true Christian and not wanting everyone to have access to healtcare are imcompatible concepts in light of what Jesus/religion in general teaches about being caring, giving to others, having compassion and so forth ...

 

[Gunny]

Found ths question in another board posted by someone else and it made me wonder the question of "Any Christians against universal health care?"

The person goes on to say that as a Christian (and not a religious right Christian btw, a very tolerant Catholic), he was wondering if there are any Christians who are against Universal Health care, and the reasoning behind. Simply, as a Christian, he can't understand not being for UHC.

I personally cannot see how being a true Christian and not wanting everyone to have access to healtcare are imcompatible concepts in light of what Jesus/religion in general teaches about being caring, giving to others, having compassion and so forth ...

Basically an intellectually dishonest argument for the purpose of attacking Christianity and attempting to push an agenda appealing to the emotions of others.

If you don't want my religion in gov't. don't appeal to it to support your political agenda.

Likewise, I have to wonder how many of secular-progressive Dawinists are FOR UHC, when obviously, it violates the basic tenet of natural selection/survival of the fittest ....

 

[Psychoblues]

Gunny, keep your dishonesty in that 1/2 pint under your coat. OK?

Basically an intellectually dishonest argument for the purpose of attacking Christianity and attempting to push an agenda appealing to the emotions of others.

If you don't want my religion in gov't. don't appeal to it to support your political agenda.

Likewise, I have to wonder how many of secular-progressive Dawinists are FOR UHC, when obviously, it violates the basic tenet of natural selection/survival of the fittest ....

The human species have come very far from the days of the cavemen. Are you just trying to bully someone? No surprise, I think it was part of your life's training.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, keep your dishonesty in that 1/2 pint under your coat. OK?





The human species have come very far from the days of the cavemen. Are you just trying to bully someone? No surprise, I think it was part of your life's training.

There's a point to your response? Well, other than being an attempt at dismissiveness to hide the deflection?

This thread isn't about me. I made a valid point. Address it or move on.

 

[Darwin]

Likewise, I have to wonder how many of secular-progressive Dawinists are FOR UHC, when obviously, it violates the basic tenet of natural selection/survival of the fittest ....

A society with Universal Health Care, is more fit to survive than a society where people do not look after eachother. So, therefore it would certainly be against Darwinism, or atleast against the development of the human race, not to have Universal Health Care.

The term fit means best suited for survival. A society that can see other ways than the use of brute force alone, but also applies some intelligence and ability to reason about what is best, is imo more "fit" for survival than a dog eat dog society with very little morals.

 

[Ruby]

Basically an intellectually dishonest argument for the purpose of attacking Christianity and attempting to push an agenda appealing to the emotions of others.

If you don't want my religion in gov't. don't appeal to it to support your political agenda.

Likewise, I have to wonder how many of secular-progressive Dawinists are FOR UHC, when obviously, it violates the basic tenet of natural selection/survival of the fittest ....

You do seem to be making a very false analogy. Survival of the fittest is how evolution occurs...thats not a sentient being making a decision.

We are a social species and for OUR survival we would want all in our species to thrive and to become stronger and we do this with sentient mind. It means that instead of wanting to kill off the weakest, we would seek ways to make them stronger and therefore our species as a whole stronger.

You seem to want to pretend that recognzing the process of evolution and the process of natural selection would mean we want to take that over into a calculated eugenics program or not try to strive for more as a species and simply allow our sick to suffer and die. Part of evolution and the natural selection has left us with is a brain that can actually interferre and CREATE situations and remedies to strengthen the weak.

 

[Darwin]

You seem to want to pretend that recognzing the process of evolution and the process of natural selection would mean we want to take that over into a calculated eugenics program or not try to strive for more as a species and simply allow our sick to suffer and die. Part of evolution and the natural selection has left us with is a brain that can actually interferre and CREATE situations and remedies to strengthen the weak.

One would suspect that in fact it is the Christians who would like to see sick and weak people die, as this will either send them to Hell if they have not been behaving, and this is not a bad thing, or to Heaven if they have been good, which also must be a good thing, right?

I am quite sure that people who do not believe in an afterlife, value life a lot more than the conservative-religious types.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One would suspect that in fact it is the Christians who would like to see sick and weak people die, as this will either send them to Hell if they have not been behaving, and this is not a bad thing, or to Heaven if they have been good, which also must be a good thing, right?

I am quite sure that people who do not believe in an afterlife, value life a lot more than the conservative-religious types.

Actually if one reads the Bible they will discover that when we die we do not "go" anywhere. Your dead and that is it until Jesus rules and God then Judges all those living and dead determining where they end up, permanently dead, living on earth with Jesus or one of the 144,000 that go to heaven.

 

[Darwin]

Actually if one reads the Bible they will discover that when we die we do not "go" anywhere. Your dead and that is it until Jesus rules and God then Judges all those living and dead determining where they end up, permanently dead, living on earth with Jesus or one of the 144,000 that go to heaven.

Ah... I certainly have not wasted my life focusing on one of the worlds many silly religions so I would not be surprised if I am wrong about the specific details.

I thought it was Jehovas Witnesses who believed in the whole 144,000 deal though? All Christians believe in the 144,000 go to heaven deal, then?

If you don't go anywhere after you die, how does the whole decomposing thing work? Aren't people kind of screwed once their body is completely disintegrated and reused as building material for plants and such?

 

[mattskramer]

I’m back. This is just too entertaining. So I changed my mind and returned – or I lied – so sue me. Anyway, though I’m not a Christian, I do not see in the gospels where Jesus called on government to force people to pay for other people’s health care. While Jesus supposedly spoke much about ministering to the sick and helping the ill, I don’t see where he advocated force.

Following his example, there are many Christian charities and services that use donations to help the ill. A great charity that I helped raise money for is St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. http://www.stjude.org/about . Also see http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/ChristianCharities.htm

 

[Toro]

Jesus was a socialist.





And he didn't own a gun.

 

[Gunny]

A society with Universal Health Care, is more fit to survive than a society where people do not look after eachother. So, therefore it would certainly be against Darwinism, or atleast against the development of the human race, not to have Universal Health Care.

The term fit means best suited for survival. A society that can see other ways than the use of brute force alone, but also applies some intelligence and ability to reason about what is best, is imo more "fit" for survival than a dog eat dog society with very little morals.

I disagree. A socialist society is less fit to survive because it is based on mediocrity for everyone. And propping up the weak that would perish due to attrition is what goes against Darwinism.

 

[Gunny]

You do seem to be making a very false analogy. Survival of the fittest is how evolution occurs...thats not a sentient being making a decision.

We are a social species and for OUR survival we would want all in our species to thrive and to become stronger and we do this with sentient mind. It means that instead of wanting to kill off the weakest, we would seek ways to make them stronger and therefore our species as a whole stronger.

You seem to want to pretend that recognzing the process of evolution and the process of natural selection would mean we want to take that over into a calculated eugenics program or not try to strive for more as a species and simply allow our sick to suffer and die. Part of evolution and the natural selection has left us with is a brain that can actually interferre and CREATE situations and remedies to strengthen the weak.

It's not a false analogy. It's a perfectly rational/logical one.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

the question is, will it work, it has nothing to do with what your religion is.

Found ths question in another board posted by someone else and it made me wonder the question of "Any Christians against universal health care?"

The person goes on to say that as a Christian (and not a religious right Christian btw, a very tolerant Catholic), he was wondering if there are any Christians who are against Universal Health care, and the reasoning behind. Simply, as a Christian, he can't understand not being for UHC.

I personally cannot see how being a true Christian and not wanting everyone to have access to healtcare are imcompatible concepts in light of what Jesus/religion in general teaches about being caring, giving to others, having compassion and so forth ...

 

[777]

the question is, will it work, it has nothing to do with what your religion is.[/Q

No, that is not the question. The same question still stands. How is a true Christian against Universal Health Care when considering the teachings of major religions in the world (take care of the poor, give to others, diminish suffering, golden rule, etc...)? Whether the UHC works or not is another debate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ah... I certainly have not wasted my life focusing on one of the worlds many silly religions so I would not be surprised if I am wrong about the specific details.

I thought it was Jehovas Witnesses who believed in the whole 144,000 deal though? All Christians believe in the 144,000 go to heaven deal, then?

If you don't go anywhere after you die, how does the whole decomposing thing work? Aren't people kind of screwed once their body is completely disintegrated and reused as building material for plants and such?

The main Christian religions do not talk about the 144,000 thats true, but it is in the bible. Nor do they talk about the fact no one goes to heaven or hell when they die. But again that is what the Bible says. As a matter of fact the Jehova Witness do discuss both though. But they are a small Christian sect.

As for decompossing, it doesn't matter since God is, well God. That being why the whole cremation thing that some Christian religions oppose is silly.

And your not wrong about what most Christian religions imply or in some cases actually teach. I am just pointing out they are either misleading OR WRONG OUTRIGHT. Since the Bible is the holy scriptures for Christians teaching that people go to heaven is NOT what the Bible says. But then that doesn't stop a lot of sects from teach outright wrong material.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the question is, will it work, it has nothing to do with what your religion is.[/Q

No, that is not the question. The same question still stands. How is a true Christian against Universal Health Care when considering the teachings of major religions in the world (take care of the poor, give to others, diminish suffering, golden rule, etc...)? Whether the UHC works or not is another debate.

It is NOT the Governments job, Jesus was clear, Governments of man and Religion are seperate things. his teachings are what individuals are supposed to do and have nothing what so ever to do with Government. It is a false claim to say a religious person must support Government programs of ANY kind.

Using your claim why do not Christians demand socialism, having the Government feed, cloth and educate the people in religious ways? Why would Christians, using your claim, EVER support seperation of Church and State? It is a poorly thought out emotional plea designed to mislead and confuse the issues.

Now if you can find a Christian religious group that does not believe in helping the sick and the poor, you might have an axe to grind and have a reasonable question.

 

[Gunny]

the question is, will it work, it has nothing to do with what your religion is.[/Q

No, that is not the question. The same question still stands. How is a true Christian against Universal Health Care when considering the teachings of major religions in the world (take care of the poor, give to others, diminish suffering, golden rule, etc...)? Whether the UHC works or not is another debate.

The question is BS. Christians give because they want to, not because they are compelled to. Your question is nothing more than appeal to emotion.

Whether or not UHC works is VERY relevant when you are attempting to lay a guilt trip on Christians and have them support it. You're attempting to use Jesus as coersion to support something that not eveyone agrees works, or is best.

 

[Said1]

Jesus was a socialist.





And he didn't own a gun.

He was also a Capricorn and ate organic food.

 

[Ruby]

It's not a false analogy. It's a perfectly rational/logical one.

No it isnt, but I dont expect you to understand the difference between sentient choice and non sentient choice. I dont expect you to understand the concept of not eliminating the weak but rather giving them strength....those are just the kinds of things that scare you. I am sure its mostly due to the fact that you derive your thrills from trying to find those weaker than yourself to push around so you can feel "stronger" and fear that if those weaker folks find themselves with more strength, they might just come looking for you.

BOO!!