An advantage of having a blog that is is somewhat widely read is that I get letters and emails from people all over the world who have various opinions on a variety of issues. The following letter came to my email from a Christian man named "Chuck Brown." Chuck is greatly concerned about our health care system in the United States and he wrote a letter articulating how he felt Christians should view the health care debate. I do not necessarily agree, nor disagree, with Chuck's letter. I'm still processing much of what he writes. However, with his permission, I am posting the letter below and asking you, my Christian brothers and sisters in Christ, to respond to his arguments for government health care. The only rule of thumb for the comment stream is that I ask you respond with your viewpoint in a kind, gracious and civil spirit.
"I have really good private health insurance through my employer. I pay a small fortune for it every month, and my employer pays them a much bigger fortune just for me and my family. My needs are being met right now, but I do not trust the private health insurance interests because, as 1 Timothy 6:10 says, “...the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
The private health insurance interests do not love you and me. They do not love the sick. They love only what is in someone’s pockets — yours and mine. I am personally convinced that they would gladly let a sick child die to save a dollar. This is why I am in favor of the health care reform plan taking shape in the U.S. Congress right now, including a government-run health insurance option to work in competition with private health care insurance. If you please, I would like to make the following four major points:
1) I would like to see the uninsured become insured. As a Christian, I would have to do that even if it was not what I wanted to do, but I want to do this. I make under $250,000 per year. Nonetheless, if it were to come down to it, I would be personally glad to pay more taxes to help these uninsured people. It is just plain the right thing to do.
2) The private health insurance interests are not in business to provide health care. They are in business for the same reason most other businesses are — to make money and as much of it as possible for their stockholders — and I am probably one of those stockholders. Back in the late 1980s, the private health insurance interests duped American businesses into thinking that they could control skyrocketing health care costs by taking over virtually the whole system. No doubt some cost savings were achieved for a while early in the game. Nonetheless, the overall costs of private health care kept rising at a tremendous annual rate over time, and it is still rising fast. One of the reasons was private health insurance profits.
I recently read an article that highlighted the story of a man who was a manager in a private health insurance company for 3 years. Most companies and small businesses feel fortunate to take home a 5 percent or 10 percent annual profit. The insurance manager said the annual profit for his company, over those 3 years, were 29 percent, 37 percent, and 49 percent. Where does that come from — your pocket and mine — while the cost of health insurance continues to skyrocket. Private health insurance is expensive because it is the only game in town. When you are the only game in town, you can jack prices into the stratosphere. The government-run option in the health care reform plan would create the competition and price control pressure necessary to put an end to this. If you dislike the multi-million dollar executive bonuses at failed Wall Street investment banks, the private health insurance rip-off should have your soul literally on fire. If it does not, you need to pinch yourself to see if you are still alive.
3) How soon we all forget. Many of us have selective amnesia, but I do not. I actually remember the time about 10 years ago when the private health insurance interests were denying treatments and drugs to patients right and left so they could line their pockets with the proceeds from human misery. That all changed rather suddenly when the federal politicians started getting seriously interested in something called “health care reform.” The naughty boys among the private health insurance interests saw dad reaching for his belt, coat, and the pathway to the woodshed. Collectively, these interests decided they had better “cool it” and get really reasonable with their patients --- that is until the storm blows over. They did get more reasonable. However, you folks out there have to understand that they did this only because of their fear of the looming fight ahead — the one we are in right now for real health care reform.
If the private health insurance interests win this health care reform fight we are in now, they will be King of the Hill – alone on top — no challengers — all enemies vanquished — in total control — answerable to no one — with absolute power over your health care. As the old saying goes, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If they win this time, the cancer treatment that is merely questioned today could be denied next year. The expensive drug your son desperately needs to stay alive this year could be denied next year. There will be, quite literally, no one to stop the private health insurance interests, and they will do what they have always done — take maximum financial advantage of their wonderful new situation while your loved one sinks deeper into illness.
4) Be on the lookout for lies. The private health insurance interests and their cronies are in the BIG LIE business right now. One of their biggest lies is that government health plans do not work. That is not true. There are some problems in Canada and Great Britain, but even those are being addressed. They made some bad planning decisions. You will hear a lot about how Canada and Great Britain failed, so that must mean we will fail too. What they do not tell you is that Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and Switzerland have universal government health insurance that works very efficiently and is a lot less expensive per person than our current private health insurance system. Taiwan actually studied what Canada and Great Britain did wrong, so they could identify their specific mistakes and avoid them — which they did. It has been a tremendous success. If we Americans can put a man on the moon, we can do even better than Taiwan did with health care.
An associate of one of my close friends had a teenage son who was recently on travel in Great Britain. Somewhere in London, he had the great misfortune of getting his arm broken. Naturally, they rushed him to the hospital. He had good American health insurance. Was he denied help because he was a foreigner? No. Did he have to wait for hours in a long line for care? No. They treated him right away. He flashed his American health insurance card at them, and they laughed at him. “You don’t need that here,” they said. They fixed him right up and had him on his way to a full recovery in no time. What were the hospital and doctor charges? It is my understanding that they were ZERO.
Therefore, as a fellow Christian, I urge you to be watchful on this issue in both directions. If you are skeptical of the current health care reform program that is taking shape in the U.S. Congress, I would urge you to be equally skeptical of the private health insurance side. Some of the national news outlets like CNN (particularly Anderson Cooper Live 360ยบ (at 10:00 p.m. EDT and 9:00 p.m. CDT) have spots each night where they examine the claims on both sides to see who is actually telling the truth. It is crystal clear to me that the great weight of flat-out LIES is being told by those who are opposed to health care reform. Jesus would not have us take sides with a position that is caught nightly in a perpetual state of lying to the American people.
A great many of the millions of uninsured citizens in our country are what the King James Bible refers to as “...the least of these...” I am talking about the poor, the working poor, the mentally ill, the handicapped, sick people who are labeled as “too risky to cover,” those whose health insurance has been terminated, and many others. In light of that, I wonder when we, as Christians (as well as our pastors), are going to take seriously the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:40, as follows:
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord,when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Ultimately, health care reform is not about whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, or whatever else. It is not about whether you are conservative, liberal, independent, or apolitical. It is not about whether you despise Barack Obama or like Barack Obama. Health care reform is about “…the least of these...” among us and our ability to make some changes that will help them.
Therefore, I would urge you to please support the health care reform bill that is taking shape in the U.S. Congress right now. Write to you elected representatives and ask them to support health care reform, including the government-run health care option to serve as “checks and balances” on private health insurance costs and excesses. As you consider this, please remember that security in this world is promised to no man, woman, or child. Life may look good for you right now, but tomorrow you and your children could quickly find yourselves counted among “...the least of these...” All it takes is a lost job, a mortgage foreclosure, a business deal gone bad, a serious car accident, a major illness, and many other unforeseen things. Too many of our neighbors all over this great country of ours have found this out the hard way just over the past 9 months. God bless you and thank you for giving consideration to this important issue."
Chuck Brown
432 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 432 Newer› Newest»Ezekial,
Rome really didn't die from either freedom or dependence. It died from corruption. The people of that day really wouldn't have understood that even dependence on the govt was possible apart from their own hard work. We are the people who have to struggle through that possibility.
OK, in a perfect world, Christians would aid all the poor, pay the hospital bills etc. but the fact is that isn't happening in the real world.
Insurance premiums for a family are too high for most to be able to afford adequate insurance. Government funded healthcare for children, WIC etc, is doing a very good job in my opinion. For children Medicaid provides very good dental care, hospital care, wellness care, etc. I just think all possibilities should be looked into. My friend is a wonderful Christian woman, she sings the praises of Canada's system. She has experienced it. I believe her.
I don't think that the Bible has anything to say about it one way or another at least from what I can see, so I am simply going by my years as a health care worker where government funded programs worked very well. It has also helped to pay for my parents medical care and is doing very well.
When I worked in a nursing home years ago, we were never told who was on welfare. We were to give the same high quality care to both paying and welfare patients. That included in the hospital where I worked.
There are a high number of individuals who have no insurance because it would take over half of their income to afford it. So they get zero medical and wellness care. Those are the facts. In the real world.
Tom,
I pretty much agree with your analysis of the classic Baptist answer re: welfare--pretty much. But I think what Christine was addressing was an attitude, encountered in some comments here, that our Christian obligation is much less: it is to provide emergency help only to those physically unable to help themselves, and tell everyone else, "You want hospital insurance? Go get a job!"
That reminded me of a point I had largely overlooked myself, although I briefly touched only it in my last comment, about the medical clinic. A significant number of people without health insurance who came to our clinic lacked the basic stability to become regular church attenders. I know that Jesus transforms lives, and it could be argued that He could and would transform this aspect of a person's life--but I think it does not always happen. We see that in our membership, or at least I do. And I suspect that this lack of stability affects other areas, making it unlikely that they can hold a steady job, especially one with benefits, such as health insurance. A number of people in this comment thread have made statement presupposing that unemployed people, the 50 million more or less without insurance in this country, are capable of getting a full-time job with benefits and thus solving their own problem--something I am less certain of. What do you think about this, and if my hypothesis is even partly true, (1) do you think there is any obligation to meet their needs, and (2) if so, how?
John
"It died from corruption."
That is right. What was corrupt? And why? It was a plunder economy and taxation led many into destitution except of course the ruling oligarchy.
" The people of that day really wouldn't have understood that even dependence on the govt was possible apart from their own hard work. We are the people who have to struggle through that possibility."
I am not sure this makes sense. Government ruled just about every aspect of the Roman citizen's life.
The bottomline is that government cannot give anything unless it first takes. And then it must continue to take and take and take.
Debbie, My friends in Canada do not sing the praises of the system. They know people who have waited 6 mos to get an MRI or are on waiting lists to get hip replacements.
When Congress is on the same plan, maybe some of us will think differently about it. Obama is picking up on this complaint because now he is using this rhetorical device "It will be a plan like Congress'"
But it is no such thing. How do I know? My congressional rep told me.
Debbie Kaufman,
"I don't think that the Bible has anything to say about it one way or another at least from what I can see, so I am simply going by my years as a health care worker where government funded programs worked very well."
While I appreciate your thoughtful reply, we cannot depend on a few verses that address the issue directly. Abortion is never explicitly mentioned either, but we have found our verses.
The question is, in response to the gospel of Jesus, what are the kind of people we ought to be and how best to love our neighbor.
You are right: "OK, in a perfect world, Christians would aid all the poor, pay the hospital bills etc. but the fact is that isn't happening in the real world."
However, the fact that we are not is SORRY. Forget the "real world."
We are Christians and we are never to succomb to the "real world."
Do people realize how much money the church generates in this country and around the world? Do we realize how much these prosperity gospel scam artists bring in? If they never receive another dime, they could run their "so-called" ministries FOREVER on their current assets.
I am not shaming anyone with money. I am shaming the short-sightedness of how we use our money.
Perhaps this is why many of the beautiful cathedrals in Europe remain empty. One day someone realized that the church was spending money on itself.
By the way, our churches in rural Alexander County, NC in two days raised $10,000 to re-open our Domestic Violence Resource Center after it was forced to close its doors at the beginning of the month for lack of funds and resources. If we can do that in a two day emergency effort (and we are not a wealty county) could you imagine what real sacrificial giving of the entire body of Christ could do for the poor and the uninsured of this country, maybe even the world?
We just may have to do without some technology in the sanctuary and square footage in our building proposals.
(Interesting note: I heard stuff like this at Duke all the time and they just spent $22 Million on an ADDITION to the Divinity School. How Ironic?)
Chris Ryan,
Ok, since we have made it this far let's consider where all this is going, looking forward.
Can we agree that corruption, on practically every level of government that we know today is alive and growing? If we can agree on that, why in the world would you want to feed it or give it more opportunity to grow with an almost unlimited checkbook tied directly to the heartstrings of most warm blooded people?
I have heard it said that power corrupts. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You/we already know they have a tendency toward corruption anyway, republican or democrat. Why would you want to help them along by giving them more power over your life and health?
Ezekial,
I don't. I'm just saying that for several hundred years, the system worked. You asked a question, and I provided a historical example. Dependence on the govt has previously sustained and empowered an entire empire.
Since the corruption exists regardless of whether govt is big or small, the point of the post that started this conversation is moot.
I commented way earlier in this stream about the profits of insurance companies and how those profits keep them solvent so they can pay claims and have high ratings by the ratings services and state insurance boards.
WHile working today I remembered something else I thought might be important for some of you to know about profits at insurance companies.
They are already regulated.
If we sell an insurance product that has lower than predicted loss ratios (resulting in higher than predicted profits) the state insurance boards make the insurance company lower the rates on that product thus limiting the profits.
dm
Tim: You mean we are not to live in reality? Sure we are.
David: They can't be regulated enough. As I said, my in laws were paying for over twenty years on a nursing home insurance that turned out to be bogus. It paid nothing. Zero. Zilch.
Just the amount one has to pay upfront before insurance companies pay on hospital bills is in the thousands on top of the high premiums. Where is that a help?
John Fariss said...
A number of people in this comment thread have made statement presupposing that unemployed people, the 50 million more or less without insurance in this country, are capable of getting a full-time job with benefits and thus solving their own problem--something I am less certain of. What do you think about this, and if my hypothesis is even partly true, (1) do you think there is any obligation to meet their needs, and (2) if so, how?
John,
Reasonable questions -- I suppose it is not fair for me or others to just state the belief that the problem should not be solved via government and offer no alternative or offer only unrealistic ones. I do think that the article I linked to earlier gives some actions that the government could take that would help a lot, but that still would not answer what to do about the truly needy.
I definitely don't subscribe to the "tell them to go get a job" approach -- to me it sounds a lot like James 2:15-16:
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? .
So my answer to (1) is "Yes", but my answer to (2) is "I'm not entirely sure." I am not willing to set aside all principles of what I think the government should and shouldn't do because I see a need going unmet, but I am not convinced that the church of today is likely to do what it really ought to do about the problem.
Perhaps the church would rise to the occasion more if the government were to get out of the business of doing what the church ought to be doing -- I think that people are less inclined to be charitable and generous when they are under compulsion. So perhaps people would be willing to do more to help others on a voluntary basis if they weren't being compelled to pay taxes so the government can fulfill that role.
But regardless of what the government does/doesn't or should/shouldn't do, there is always more that we as believers can/should do to help others in need. My opinion is that most churches spend far, far too many resources (people, time, and money) on maintaining the institutional organization than on real ministry (meeting of needs) to church’s members and to the community around them. For many church leaders, the goal for their church members is to get them all "plugged in" to performing some sort of activity surrounding the church's meetings and facilities (working in the nursery, serving as usher, teaching a class, mowing the grass, etc.) and get them to consistently giving money to meet the church budget (staff salaries, mortgage, utilities, programs, activities, etc.). Rarely do I see a church where a person is encouraged to give more of themselves and their money to meet the needs of the community around them than to meet the church budget. If we had more churches committed to the priorities outlined in Scripture we'd have a lot more resources going in to addressing issues like the medical needs of the members and the community. But at this time I fear the church is no more likely to start doing what it should than the government is to stop doing what it shouldn't.
Thanks for asking for my opinion. This thread has pretty much run its course, so I doubt many people will see this response, but I hope you do.
-----
Tom
May I suggest something here:
The topic is not about MONEY.
It is not about "I", "Me", or
"My"
Take a good hard look at 'the problem', what is needed, and the moral and ethical requirements we must meet in order to still be able to call ourselves 'human', much less 'Christian'.
The topic is not about MONEY.
It is about doing what is right, without excuses or apology.
Tom,
I can certainly affirm what you said, with no reservations.
John
Debbie Kaufman,
I believe that Christians can be agents of change. Furthermore, I refuse to accept that things are the way that they are and there is nothing that I or anyone can do about it.
What if Jesus thought like that?
What if the disciples, even after the Resurrection, approached their faith with a resignation to the way things are?
I still believe that the church can make a difference.
How? Those are things to figure out.
But, if the world's 1.7 billion "Christians" could ever come together (John 17), the world would look a lot different than it does at the moment.
I haven't read all the comments, but here is a post that speaks to question: http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/SusannahCox/718377/
Christiane said ...
Take a good hard look at 'the problem', what is needed, and the moral and ethical requirements we must meet in order to still be able to call ourselves 'human', much less 'Christian'.
The topic is not about MONEY.
It is about doing what is right, without excuses or apology.
I agree. And because I believe it is not morally right for government to enforce or perform the moral and ethical dictates of my religion, in my mind doing what is right means being opposed in principle to government health care, without excuses or apology.
To be clear and consistent, I must also state that I am opposed to all government "charitible" programs, including Social Security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps, etc. It is part of my religious beliefs that such programs are contrary to God's intent for government, and it is part of my political beliefs that they are contrary to the foundational princples of this country. I am, however, aware that my view is not all that common in modern society, either religiously or politically, and it is unlikely that society will adopt my perspective any time soon. It is also part of my beliefs that I should submit to the God-ordained governmental "powers that be", in so far as those powers are not actively causing harm to others or opposing / restricting the free practice of what I believe God has commanded of me. As such I will pay my taxes and register my objection in expressing my dissent and in how I vote in elections.
-----
Tom
Meliss,
Wow! That was an awesome article! Thanks for sharing.
-----
Tom
Hi TOM KELLEY,
An idea: suppose we remove all gov't help to those in need, as you think Christ would want us to do.
Would you be willing to fast and give up your medical care in solidarity with the poor?
Would you be willing to be 'with them' in the misery that would follow?
Or is that not something you think Christ would want you to do?
If it is not about money, who will pay the nurses, the nurses aids and the guy who cleans the hospital? Who will pay for the bandages, operating equipment, yummy hospital food, scrubs, hospital beds, etc., etc.
I do not think all that stuff is free. :o)
Somehow I think money is involved somewhere....
Meliss, Article was dead on.
No. Money is NOT the topic.
Once you understand what is the right position for you to take after reading the Gospels, and praying for Guidance from the Holy Spirit, and considering the reality of the situation;
then you take your stand.
Some can walk away. "It's not our problem."
Some can't.
In the end, the poor can no longer be left alone unaided, not if you follow Christ. He is where they are.
Money?
I learn something new every day about the fundamentalist worldview.
Christiane, Isn't it rather cruel of you to expect the nurses aid to work for free or below minimum wage? :o)
Meliss,
I appreciate the post of the article, but concerned that while on the one hand the author believes that the gov't should not seize property to help disadvantaged groups and that it is not biblical, she also, at the same time, expresses concern for the founding principles of this nation.
I cannot tell whether she is operating from a Christian or American Conservative viewpoint.
The question remains: if gov't healthcare is not the solution (and it may not be), then what is the alternative provided by the church?
Or is that even our responsibility?
Is 'money' an excuse not to make appropriate changes for the uninsured ? Or a 'reason'?
Either way, you abandon consideration for the morality and the Christian ethics of allowing our citizens to be denied the right to adequate health coverage.
Putting a price tag on human life?
I can't do that. I don't have that luxury, and my son lives in safety and in dignity in private care.
But I KNOW that there are so many others who must be cared for and who suffer.
No, I can't joke with you.
It wouldn't be right for ME to do it. I sure you can find others that will get your point.
Christiane said...
An idea: suppose we remove all gov't help to those in need, as you think Christ would want us to do.
That's not quite what I intended to convey. I do not believe it is the God-intended role of the state to compel (via penalty of law for failure to do so) its citizens to support/fund moral imperatives of one's religion. A voluntary system involving government would be a different matter entirely.
Would you be willing to fast and give up your medical care in solidarity with the poor?
If by solidarity you mean a demonstration of support or concern, that would seem a hollow gesture. But would I be willing to give up food or funds or medical care so that another in need could have their needs met? I have and do, and would like to think that if the government didn't take my money to fulfill that role, I'd use the greater resources I'd have to help more people.
Would you be willing to be 'with them' in the misery that would follow?
If the state got out of the business of doing the church's business, I do not except it as a given that God's people would not rise to the challenge of using their means to meet the needs around them. I believe most of us, including myself, could do much more to help others than we usually do.
Or is that not something you think Christ would want you to do?
The key is that each must follow his own conscience as to what Christ would have him do. No one can abdicate to another (or to the state) his responsibilities to personally fulfill the commands of Christ. And no one should coerce or cajole another concerning what he ought to be doing.
Good sharing this exchange of ideas with you. As I said earlier, I don't think the government is going to cease doing what it's been doing (in fact, I think it's inevitable that government controlled/sponsored health care will be implemented and then will continue to expand, as is the nature of government programs), and I will do as Caesar compels.
-----
Tom
Tom,
You wrote, "If the state got out of the business of doing the church's business, I do not except it as a given that God's people would not rise to the challenge of using their means to meet the needs around them."
My question is, "Why do we have to wait for the government?" Why can't we start mounting a challenge instead of waiting for a vacuum?
Chris,
Good point. No need to wait -- I'm just saying that human nature is such that people are less inclined to do out of voluntary generosity what they feel they are already doing under compulsion. But perhaps we don't give the church and individual believers the due credit for all that they are already doing. Even if we gave our all, would we ever eradicate human poverty and need? Seems unlikely;, in this fallen world there can be no utopia. Doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't do more than we do, though. As I indicated earlier, I believe churches would have an amazing level of resources to meet the needs of those around us if we had more biblical priorities concerning what constitutes "ministry".
Thank you, TOM KELLEY, for your response. Love, L's
The article shown in part below was on the news this morning. In my opinion it shows how much corruption can/will happen when the government takes over.
VA workers given millions in bonuses as vets await checks.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Report details financial, ethical misconduct among IT employees at VA Department.
Report: Retired VA official acted as if she was given a "blank checkbook" for bonuses.
Bonuses were paid despite backlog of vets' disability claims.
By Laurie Ure CNN August 22, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN)
-- While hundreds of thousands of disability claims lay backlogged at the Department of Veterans Affairs, thousands of technology employees at the department received $24 million in bonuses, a new report says.
"Should" is the dirtiest word that Christians use.
Word Verification: Sedso
As we speak, Americans are losing jobs and health care, Americans are being told 'your claim has been denied . . . ', and Americans are also being 'cut' from coverage on the whims of bean-counters in attempts to bolster profits.
These people are now vulnerable and in trouble. They are our people.
That is what WE are faced with, because 'there but for the grace of God go I'.
Solutions?
I am not looking to the Christian far-right, nor to the Republican Party for leadership in solving this problem. Their rhetoric on the subject is from the same play-book. They provide the base that has given the drug industry and the profiteering HMO executives their power and control.
I DO believe that there are Christians who care about solving the problem, but who do not see that solution in Government as a good option. I can respect these Christian people with all my heart.
I appreciate these people sharing their thought here, and I have read them and tried to understand them.
In the end, there are Americans now who will not rest while their countrymen are in trouble.
And once their hand is put to the plow, there can be no turning back.
Love, L's
Christiane, you are quite gentle and it is much appreciated. So please take my comments as a critique of your position rather than an attack on your person.
"Either way, you abandon consideration for the morality and the Christian ethics of allowing our citizens to be denied the right to adequate health coverage."
This is the central issue that people are talking around. Health coverage is not a right, period. It is not a right in the Bible and it is not a right in America. What else are you using as a basis for this statement? Those who think it is a right are in the habit of making those who don't, feel guilty for it.
"Solutions?
I am not looking to the Christian far-right, nor to the Republican Party for leadership in solving this problem. Their rhetoric on the subject is from the same play-book. They provide the base that has given the drug industry and the profiteering HMO executives their power and control."
This is just naive. I don't think you're thinking this through. In all your talk about loving humanity in the midst of their unfunded health crises, how many drugs to alleviate human suffering have you created? Out of one side of your mouth you bless the life-saving drugs that all the poor people are supposedly denied while you bash those who create them as 'profiteers.' To be honest, I'd rather have one creative, go-getter drug producer who saves thousands of lives for profit, than thousands of non-creative speech-makers who blog about the best way to hijack the creative genius of the producer. Maybe the drug producer would rather just get a 'thank you' now and then instead of all the vitriol. It is they, after all, who are responsible for saving the lives, not the Christians who sit around and philosophize about love.
Lydia,
After reading all the comments, do you not agree that a good dose of Atlas Shrugged would point out the immorality of it all?
Maybe the drug producer would rather just get a 'thank you' now and then instead of all the vitriol.
The drug producers (pharmaceuticals) are getting their rewards. Their prices have gone up at least 1000% in the past 20 years. A monthly dosage of pain killers 20 years ago and now, the prices have gone up 1000%.
If you look at where all the money is going for drug research and production, you will find that 70% of the costs go to management and marketing. The actual R&D portion is more like 10% of the cost of the drugs.
I do not wish to single out the pharmaceuticals in this regard. Everybody is in this game. From Ambulances, Police, Emergency Rooms, Doctors and Hospitals. And let us not forget the insurance companies, both non-profit and for-profit.
From my perspective, they are stiffing the american consumers. Why? Captive Audience. No true competition.
I do not think L's is naive here.
Darby, I agree that the Church can never replace the State, and vice-versa, but I think Christians have the moral obligation to influence the State for the benefit of its citizens.
Two kinds of 'Christianity':
how little we are obligated to do and still be able to look ourselves in the face and call ourselves 'Christian',
using our interpretation of 'the Bible' to justify our commitment or lack of commitment.
OR
we have the honor to serve Christ with the integrity of our beings wholeheartedly and without reservation for the benefit of the least of His in our society, and to reflect this in our citizenship according to our consciences as informed by the teachings of our Church
Should a Christian vote for someone who supported profiteering by HMO's who are taking advantage of and increasing the misery of our people?
I raise the question.
Please know that these powerful profiteers have made decisions that have led to the deaths of many of our citizens. Some of our citizens are now in danger from them. Should Christian people intervene in a government which has allowed these powerful interests to destroy innocent lives ?
I raise the question.
Please know I am influenced by my own faith and my own conscience, and I do understand that you are also, respectively,
and I can appreciate that we see things differently because of this. Love, L's
P.S. In short, do people have a God-given right to live in a country without the government allowing profiteers to take that right away from them, for the sake of material gain?
And, do people who need health care in order to live, have that right in the eyes of a Christian people? Or not?
These are difficulties we cannot run from anymore. The 'problem' is out on the table: and we need to sit down together and work it out. I hope you can agree.
Love, L's
After reading all the comments, do you not agree that a good dose of Atlas Shrugged would point out the immorality of it all?.
I would strongly encourage all the intellectuals who produce drugs and give care to go on a strike!
Then everyone will notice they are not the problem.
The problem people are the marketers, politicians, lobbyists, paper pushers who truly do not create anything of value here.
Also, not all the intellectual work in the world is being done in this country alone. Gone are the days when USA can claim superiority in research in medicine.
The only thing USA is good now is in marketing, lobbying and paper pushing.
"From my perspective, they are stiffing the american consumers. Why? Captive Audience. No true competition."
Thy Peace, what are you talking about? Don't you see the irony in your statement? How is the creator of a drug stiffing the american consumers? They don't have to make the life-saving drug at all. It's irrelevant how much they spend on marketing. They created it. They don't owe it to anyone. They're providing a good or service. If people don't want the good or service, they don't have to pay for it. OR they can make up their own good or service to replace it. Where in the Bible do any of you who talk like this get justification for demanding the right to steal someone else's labor? And then call it love?
Thy peace,
I was writing while you were posting your last comment. I'm inclined to agree with your statement about the lobbying and paper pushing. I think that's part of the real problem.
Christiane, you said:
"Please know that these powerful profiteers have made decisions that have led to the deaths of many of our citizens. Some of our citizens are now in danger from them. Should Christian people intervene in a government which has allowed these powerful interests to destroy innocent lives?"
I beg to differ. These 'profiteers' didn't owe it to any citizen to create something that would make their life better. These citizens are in the trouble they're in because they live in a fallen world. Again, where do we get the right to steal the property others produce in the name of love? Just asking the question.
I agree with Thy Peace that the back door deals of financiers and such are often not so much part of the production of valuable goods, but just another attempt by non-producers to weasle in on others' production. Some of them are just more clever than the average idea thief.
The other thing USA was supposed to be good was [Sarcasm]Financial Innovation[/Sarcasm]. We all have seen the results of it in the past year. May God help us from these innovators!
Darby, are you up on the debates surrounding drug patents and generic drugs?
Do some homework.
This will get you started:
Perspective One:
'Life-saving' drugs:
Yes. But you better be able to pay big-time.
or
Nope. No money? Get lost.
Perspective Two:
'Life-saving drugs'
A drug exists that can save lives.
It is the property of the developers, but is their profit the only consideration when they decide who lives and who dies?
OR is there some kind of ethical and moral imperative to apply considerations for its dissemination, other than 'profit' alone? Is there a 'fairness' to all involved that can be arrived at that is acceptable?
Lots of debating on other perspectives out there, Darby.
Go take a look. But remember, the lens of the 'conservative' is not always 'Christian'. Sometimes, it's just 'run-away' capitalism.
Use the 'Christ' lens, Darby. It makes a difference. Love, L's
An example, where consumers are unable to afford the drugs.
NYT > In Sour Economy, Some Scale Back on Medications.
"It is the property of the developers, but is their profit the only consideration when they decide who lives and who dies?
OR is there some kind of ethical and moral imperative to apply considerations for its dissemination, other than 'profit' alone? Is there a 'fairness' to all involved that can be arrived at that is acceptable?"
You're not interacting with my point, but arguing around it. What right does anyone have to claim another's property for dissemination? Is this the 'Christ' lens you're speaking of? Theft? Would it be Christian of me to demand your house for my homeless friend? Surely there must be a moral and ethical way for me to but into your life and steal your house out from under you in the name of love for the homeless.
You ask, "Is there a fairness to all involved that can be arrived at that is acceptable?" Let me ask you, Is there a fairness to all involved that entitles me to take your house for a homeless man's use? It might seem fair for the homeless man, but probably not so much for you. My argument is that you have no right to even ask the question, "Is there fairness" when it concerns someone else's intellectual property. That is called theft, and I don't care what sentiment you use to justify it, it isn't Christian.
Reasonable compensation and fairness to all concerned is now considered 'theft' by Christian Conservatives?
I don't think so.
When profits take precedence over human life among members of a denomination, and it is done in the name of Christ, I would go back to the Gospels again for guidance. Very quickly.
Love,L's
I will concede to Darby that his argument about IP for drug manufacturers is correct.
In lot of ways, drugs are like software. Except for drugs, where they are life saving drugs, and where they greatly can enhance peoples lives, the ethical issues can not be ignored.
Granted, the drug manufacturer needs to make money. No question there.
But one needs to balance this with saving lives and where there is so much suffering is being caused in not taking medications. This argument has no force of law, but only a moral and ethical force on the manufacturer to stop making profits as the number one priority of their business.
It is also supply and demand. If the demand collapses, then manufacturers will have to cut prices to increase demand. Assuming the product is safe and effective. So to maximize profits, one can shift on the pricing to accommodate people who can not afford it. I know some drug manufacturers will let you sign up with them for free medications or deeply discounted medications for people who are unable to afford them, but this practice is more paper work and not as broadly announced. It might be better for drug manufacturers to take the examples of Walmart in attempting to keep the drug prices low. Granted they are only doing it for generics.
At some point the drug manufacturers need to consider the general well being of the whole population and in the long run it is more prosperous for them for more of their medications to be consumed, than some expensive medications only the "rich" or "wealthy" can afford.
I remember when Bill Gates started his software enterprise, the price of software for individual users was in the range 2000 to 3000 dollars. When his office suite came, the pricing dropped to 500 dollars range. Now the same suite is the range of 150 dollars.
History shows, that Bill Gates made more money selling operating systems at $50- and office suites at $100- than in the $500- t0 $1000- range. That is all the billions he made, he made it on the volume.
A gentle reminder to the drug companies. A lesson to be learned.
"Reasonable compensation and fairness to all concerned is now considered 'theft' by Christian Conservatives?"
Christiane, I don't know if all would agree in calling me a conservative. :) Who in the world gets to claim the right of deciding "reasonable compensation and fairness to all concerned?" Let me translate your statement.
"We know you've created this life-saving health care option that we were too lazy or incapable or unwilling to create. But now that you've created it, we want it. Not for ourselves, of course. But for the poor people out there who need it to survive. So we've decided that you can be reasonably compensated $X for your labor. We won't let you earn any more than that because that wouldn't be fair to all of us who were too lazy or incapable or unwilling to create it. That, Christiane is theft.
Be careful in citing the gospels as justification for this theft. That's precisely what liberation theologians worldwide have been doing for years.
"History shows, that Bill Gates made more money selling operating systems at $50- and office suites at $100- than in the $500- t0 $1000- range. That is all the billions he made, he made it on the volume."
Well said.
In some ways, drug manufacturers profits are like taxes by the government.
You can not tax someone 100% and hope they will produce the same next year.
Same with drug manufacturers. You can not hope that all the population will be so sick that they cannot do without taking their medications. But then how will they pay for it?
It is all in the balance. Currently drug manufacturers are pricing their medications based on surgeries costs and hospital visits costs and pricing drugs at most of 1/10th the surgery costs. Except here the surgery costs have gone up exponentially. This method of pricing is insane. This surely comes from the minds of all the MBA's, Lawyers and Financiers. Rarely from the minds of drug innovators or researchers. Yes, I know costs to get a drug approved by FDA is also exponential. And the time it takes for the trials to complete. The whole thing is a mess.
No. You may NOT 'translate' my statement.
You may use the Gospel in the way of your faith, but I'm forbidden to use the Gospel to support anything that is not moral or ethical.
There is a moral and ethical argument that trumps the profit argument big time, when it comes to the value of even a single human life.
So to you, theft is moral in some circumstances? You seem to be forgetting that unless the producer produces, there's nothing to profit from nor is there anything to morally disseminate. You still haven't answered me as to what right you or anyone else has to claim someone else's production for themselves or others. I'm beginning to think you don't have an answer, all the while admonishing us evil 'conservatives' about our responsibility to love others.
L's the moral aspects of the Gospel are individual. They are nor forced upon an individual even by God. A person chooses to seek God or God enables a person to seek Him. But there is a choice here. Even though at times, God so loves a person that all things seems to conspire against the person to force them to God. But even here, the person can walk away from God.
What I am saying is, this is up to each individual. Or their conscience. In the world, lot of people have turned away from God and this conscience is stilled. And they can not hear the voice inside guiding them in their choices.
If government feels that a particular drug is so important for a well being of the nation as a whole, then can do Eminent domain. Now even here, they can not do it indiscriminately or else they will lose the moral argument and then there will be a revolt against the government.
Darby,
How can you agree with Thy Peace that Bill Gates made billions selling a large volume of operating systems at a low price, then turn around and argue with Christine that medicine should be sold at whatever the maker can squeeze out of the market, even if it prices the uninsured out of the market? Granted there is not a complete logical contradiction between the two positions, but there certainly seems to be a moral and ethical one--and a Christian one too, IMHO.
Like I have said elsewhere, some conservative Christians take a position that is more conservative than Christian. Darby, if the shoe fits, wear it. But I consider myself a conservative Christian (even if those to my right do not), I am a Baptist pastor, yes Southern Baptist, and "we" don't all think that way, Christine.
To ALL my more conservative brothers and sisters who say there is neither a Biblical nor a governmental responsibility to care for all in our society: we cannot think just of individual respoinsibility. Some (and I think many) of those who are unemployed/underemployed and uninsured are that way because they lack the personal stability to hold the sort of full-time job that provides hospitalization benefits. Consequently, the response, "You want health insurance? Get a job!" is just a bunch of meaningless words, even if it is dressed up in God-speak. Are you familiar with Luke 12:48, which in part reads, "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." I dare say all who have been commenting here have been given much, if not as being rich, then certainly in comparison to many. Can you show where Luke 12:48 does not apply to us?
John
John,
I agree with Thy Peace because it's right. The difference is not at all contradictory. Bill Gates had the choice as to how to make the most profit. He could be selfish if he wanted with HIS product and sell it for thousands (and miss out on all those users who couldn't afford it.) Or he could price it within a larger market and make even more evil profits. I for one will not blame Mr. Gates for his profits. I like Windows! I didn't want to create Windows myself, and I didn't want to steal it by copying the thousand dollar model. So I waited until I could afford what he produced at a price he thought fair. It's not that hard to understand John. It's not the right of the uninsured to demand the production of other people! That's theft.
People can question my Christian love without knowing me, but until one of you explains to me how theft is loving, then I'm sticking to my position.
"I dare say all who have been commenting here have been given much, if not as being rich, then certainly in comparison to many. Can you show where Luke 12:48 does not apply to us?"
No one is talking about us giving as individuals. I'm not arguing for selfishness. I'm saying love others with your own money, not what you coerce from other people. We're talking about allowing, or even demanding, that the government take someone else's product and give it to others at a price determined for them. I hate to sound redundant, but that is theft.
After reading all the comments, do you not agree that a good dose of Atlas Shrugged would point out the immorality of it all?
Sat Aug 22, 12:56:00 PM 2009
Absolutely. That is what attracted me to Randian philospophy of economics many years ago.
I was more and more frustrated with the so called intellectual elite pushing collectivism as morality. In everything from education to health care. We are seeing it here.
Everyone from Lenin to Pol Pot made the same case. Except they were exempt from the personal effects of collectivism along with the other 'policy makers' for the masses.
But the devil is not only in the details but the process of collectivising.
Where Rand got it wrong, Whittaker Chambers got it right. He also saw collectivism as the more moral choice for mankind and joined the communist party and eventually went underground. But he also saw first hand that immoral choices had to be made in order to obtain the utopian ideal of collectivism. So, collectivism is considered more moral but one must use immoral means to get there?
This is explained better in his autobiography, Witness. One of the most well written and poignant books of the 20th Century.
When he broke with the party (his very life in danger), he said he was leaving the winning side for what he knew was the losing side. And we have proved him right. Except for a few course corrections, we have slowly been moving toward collectivism for 80 years.
Note that he joined the CPUSA in the 1920's before the New Deal and left as the New Deal was implemented. There were many 'fellow travellors' as policy makers in the New Deal.
The dictohomy of Rand/Chambers approach to personal freedom and the tyranny of collectivism is too lengthy to go into here but Chambers mention of his spiritual conversion is worth reading about.
We are seeing the tyranny of collectivism here right now. Note how some are considered cruel and immoral because they do not believe the 'state' can manage peoples problems better. This tactic works.
But the problems will remain the same but with less personal freedom. There are black hearts everywhere. Greed, power mongering and lack of compassion are not the sole province of captialism. They are rampant in collectivism, too. As history testifies. And they are even worse because they force themselves upon people. Somehow, some think these evil traits are minimized if they come from decision makers far away from the indiviual.
Even Martin Luther said while mediating the peasants war that if the peasants grow more grain, the ruling authorities just take more and more from them. So why work so hard to grow more grain?
Hi DARBY,
If there is a moral and ethical law of God that tells us that profit is acceptable at all human costs, even permitting the intense suffering of others, then I need to see proof of that.
I don't think it's to be had.
Reminds me of some Lenten reading I did.
An officer tried to save money for his superiors. He would skip a certain procedure for infants and young children, and that would save a small profit.
His superiors approved and he was given recognition.
Did he have a right to make this profit? Would it have been 'theft' to deny him this profit? A few cents on each child?
Well, he opted to save the money, and instead of gassing infants and toddlers to death first, they were put live into the crematoria, to be burned alive.
How was the profit made: they didn't have to use the extra gas. Yes, they profited in this way, in the Nazi concentration camps.
They kept 'costs down'.
No comparison you say?
Wait a minute.
Aren't we talking 'Profit' now, Darby?
Or are we anywhere near a discussion where human values begin to over-ride making a 'profit' ?
Think about it.
Love, L's
L's: That comparison is too stark. I would not agree with this comparison. What the Nazi's did was very bad.
But health care mess in this country is not that bad. Yes I know, some are dying and lot of them are suffering. But it does not compare with the Holocaust.
L's,
Oh my gosh. I'm not even sure how to respond to your last comment.
You honestly can't see the difference between a drug company producing a medicine that saves lives (when no one else is capable or willing to develop it) and making a profit at it AND nazis trying to save a penny during the holocaust?
We are not on the same page here, dear one.
Here's a hint.
Take the philosophy you think is acceptable to Christ.
Put it into different contexts and see if it hold up.
If it doesn't,
take another look, and another, and another.
Christ's teachings are meaningful in all contexts, in all times and places, universally, with all peoples.
Human compassion should not have to come with a price tag, or be brought forth by someone offering due compensation for it.
It is done for Christ's sake.
"Human compassion should not have to come with a price tag, or be brought forth by someone offering due compensation for it."
Look around, and inside your own heart deep enough, and you'll realize that nothing will be brought forth except for due compensation. Maybe you need to read the gospels a little more carefully and find how Jesus motivates his followers.
BTW, Darby's argument about profits is only on intellectual property rights. Not so much on production.
From my understanding the Nazis never patented their crematoria. I know they did their best to increase "production" to beat the incoming Americans discovering their deeds, for they were already certain they were loosing (nazi's that is).
Is it stark?
Did I get your attention?
Good.
I do apologize for the extreme example, because I love you all and I KNOW that there is nothing in any of you that would even begin to deserve such a comparison.
But there is this to think about:
At WHAT POINT do we begin to draw lines in favor of one value over another? What is it that is most important to us?
No one wants to deprive anyone of just compensation. But there are those whose greed is beyond a humane context: like the officers in that camp who wanted the extra money in spite of the screams of the burning ifants. There does come A POINT where we have to stop and say, 'wait a minute' what are we doing here?
What is the 'right thing' to do?
So that we know we are still human?
Love you dearly, and sorry for that shock, I really am. L's
Human compassion should not have to come with a price tag, or be brought forth by someone offering due compensation for it.
L's this would only apply to an individual believer and with their own conscience as a guide. It can not be applied to groups of people. Each person can make this choice and then it can work bottoms up, rather than top down diktat.
L's, You are implying that Jesus looked to Caesar to relieve the suffering of those in the Roman Empire.
What Christians did for one another and others was outside the government.
Hi THY PEACE,
Yes, Christians who feel no need to respond in certain ways to the problem are excused on grounds of conscience.
I am from a 'social Gospel' religion, which is not acceptable to most of the people who blog here. It is not necessarily a 'Catholic' stand, as many main-line Protestants adhere to it also.
You can locate and read the encyclicals of my faith for clarification, if you wish, but I know that I am not 'proselytizing' in this matter. I am speaking FOR the interests of those in need in the way that I know how. I do not expect acceptance, or agreement.
I would like to raise questions and to provoke thought in the minds of the good people here.
Lydia, apples oranges.
Rome was hardly a democracy.
But thank you for your comment.
Love, L's
Darby,
I am intrigued by your "theft" argument. And my problem with it is an underlying assumption that, from a *Christian* perspective is entirely untenable.
You said, "What right does anyone have to claim another's property for dissemination?" The assumption is that there is any property (intellectual, physical, etc.) that *belongs* to you. From a Christian perspective, that is a false assumption. It is clear in the NT that ultimately everything belongs to God and that at this point we are mere stewards and caretakers. Therefore, the question is entirely unfounded. Nobody has any right to claim property from you for distributing. But nor do you have any right to withhold property where it can be of benefit to someone in need. What L's is trying to get at is that we are not dealing with a matter of theft. We are dealing with greedy stewards of another's property. That property (creation it total) was given for the benefit of all. Not for those who are strong enough to master it.
The only way what you are describing is immoral theft is if the "right to property" is truly biblical. But it isn't. A right to stewardship of property, yes. But no unqualified right to property exists. Therefore, the debate shouldn't be about "It belongs to them" or "It doesn't belong to them." It should be about how best to utilize these resources to most benefit everyone.
I for one don't think that Obamacare is the best way to utilize resources for these purposes. But it has nothing to do with supposed "rights" or "captialism" or "communism." I just don't think that there has to be better ways to make less resources go further (than they are now or would go under this plan), providing a more sustainable healthcare climate. I don't think that you are wrong to oppose this initiative. I think you are wrong to oppose it on the grounds you do.
Darby,
I am also extremely dissapointed that you would argue for an ethic based on personal compensation. On only doing something because you get something out of it, not because it is the right thing to do.
Again, that makes perfect sense if our assumptions are those of a capitalist (or communist) democracy. They are not the assumptions of scripture. That is what prompts the "fire insurance" form of faith, the Pascal's wager. But that is not by any means the sort of faith we are called to in Scriptures. That sort of faith calls for us to do the right thing at personal expense, not because Jesus will reward us later, but because doing that is what it takes to follow Christ. It is a mixed up view of faith that looks to God as an investment strategy.
Lydia,
You are one of my heros.
Darby and Thy Peace,
Excellent points.
Chris,
I think there is a biblical argument to be made both for personal property ownership/rights and for compensation as an appropriate and just motivation.
L's,
Bless your heart.
-----
Tom
"Lydia, apples oranges.
Rome was hardly a democracy."
Neither are we. :o)
Tom, I have been called a lot of things but rarely that. Wow, thanks.
Tom,
Then make them.
Hi Lydia,
I have to laugh.
You're right.
Technically, we are a 'republic'.
Love, L's
Oops.
In my first post to Darby, it should be, "I just think that there has to be better ways to make less resources go further (than they are now or would go under this plan), providing a more sustainable healthcare climate." The "don't" wasn't supposed to be there.
Chris, you said:
"I am intrigued by your "theft" argument. And my problem with it is an underlying assumption that, from a *Christian* perspective is entirely untenable."
This is simply untrue. Just because you haven't thought about it long and deeply enough doesn't make it 'entirely untenable.' (Nice word). You said:
"The assumption is that there is any property (intellectual, physical, etc.) that *belongs* to you. From a Christian perspective, that is a false assumption."
Chris, Really? I'm so glad you see things that way. I'd like for you to drive with God's gas money to the house that God let's me live in and give me God's red shirt that you look so sharp and crisp in. While you're here, you can leave me God's car that he up to this point has let you drive, give me God's money that's in his wallet that's in his pants pocket on your behind, and you can hoof it back to the place God let's you live, and hope that someone else who thinks like you still let's you live there. :)
And when you're done with all that, you can read Acts 5:1-4 and rethink. Then you can read the letters of Paul concerning giving and rethink some more. Maybe you'll go from intrigue to agreement. :)
Now, as for this:
"I am also extremely dissapointed that you would argue for an ethic based on personal compensation. On only doing something because you get something out of it, not because it is the right thing to do."
Assuming someone will let you borrow one of God's Bibles after you've given me the one that God has been letting you use, you can read the entire sermon on the mount and see how Jesus argues for his disciples' obedience - things like giving secretly so you gain secret reward, praying in private so you can be privately rewarded, fasting well so you can be rewarded well, laying up treasure well so that it is waiting for you in Heaven, not judging others so that you won't be judged, building your house on Jesus so that it stands and you're rewarded. I ask you Chris, what does it PROFIT for a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his soul? I do hope your disappointment isn't too deep.
"I just think that there has to be better ways to make less resources go further (than they are now or would go under this plan), providing a more sustainable healthcare climate."
Chris, you don't see the arrogance of this statement? The elitist bent? Who are you to decide better ways to make resources that you had nothing to do with creating go further? Where did God tell you to think this way. I've already given you opportunity to put your own money where your mouth is. Leave other people's alone. :)
Chris,
You seemed to have a problem with what Tom wrote:
"I think there is a biblical argument to be made both for personal property ownership/rights and for compensation as an appropriate and just motivation."
Here is a blog post that speaks to what Tom is saying:
http://www.fether.net/
Darby,
If you have a legitimate need for the car God has entrusted me with or the money entrusted to me by the same, then let me know. If you are just trying to rile me, please understand that you failed.
As to Ananias and Sapphira, that belonged to them in the sense that it was there to meet needs of themselves and others as God led them to do so. If they felt the need to retain some of their money for their own needs, Peter says that would have been fine. The problem was that they lied, not that they were keeping some of the money. Peter's words are literally, "Was it not while remaining to you it was remaining?" The sense of belonging (as is used in my NIV) is imported. Rather, the land is given a sense of abiding with, or remaining with, Ananias and his wife for a time. That is much more transitive than "belonging."
And if you read the Sermon on the Mount as fire insurance and only a means of attaining bigger and better stuff, then there is nothing I can say that would change your mind. The consumerism of that reading is entirely beyond my understanding. When I read the beautitudes, I hear God say "Blessed are..." meaning that their blessing is now. The other stuff happens because they realize how blessed they are to be meek or peacemakers, or (as it is in Luke's version) poor. If you read the Sermon as a means of getting a one-up, more power to you (and inevitably that is what you want when you read the sermon as such). I read it as a guide to stepping down. I don't see how your reading makes sense when placed at the foot of a cross.
To your second posting: who am I? I am one who was equally entrusted with the care of God's resources. There is nothing elitist to that at all. It is putting the pharmacist and I on equal footing, not he above nor I above. I didn't create any miracle drug. But the pharmacist didn't create anything, either, in an ultimate sense. Why? God created the pharmacist. God created the chemicals. If God has given man dominion over the care of the earth (as Genesis indicates and never relieves us of that responsibility), then each of us are equally responsible for making sure that what comes into our care is used responsibly, not necessarily of our profit. I would think that part of that entails seeking the guidance of God and others. That is why I can say that I think we could use those resources differently. They aren't mine, but they aren't ultimately the pharmicists.
Lydia,
No problem with it. I just wanted to see if there was more to it than his assertion of such. If he was saying that and could make a case, I would be willing to listen. If he was saying that but couldn't back it up, then I wanted to know what assumptions led him to believe there was a case.
I'm heading to look at the article now. Thanks for a link.
Lydia,
Which post in particular where you hoping I would read?
Chris,
I wasn't trying to rile you at all. I was trying to show you the foolishness of your argument, and expected the response you gave. The problem is your qualifications. Who gets to determine if my 'need' is 'legitimate'? Once again, elite talk. Concerning Ananias and Sapphira, you said:
"If they felt the need to retain some of their money for their own needs, Peter says that would have been fine."
That's the point. It was theirs to dispense of as they saw fit. Peter didn't claim the right to take it. Glad you see that.
As for this: "I don't see how your reading makes sense when placed at the foot of a cross." Why does Jesus command his disciples to take up their crosses? Because those who don't aren't worthy of him and will not be rewarded with Heaven. Why does Jesus tell his disciples to lose their lives? So they will gain them. Read Desiring God by John Piper.
As for your final paragraph, Chris, it sounds downright liberation theology. You said:
"It is putting the pharmacist and I on equal footing, not he above nor I above. I didn't create any miracle drug. But the pharmacist didn't create anything, either, in an ultimate sense. Why? God created the pharmacist."
Are you for real? This is just sophistry. Who gave you the right to put you and the pharmacist on 'equal footing' thereby enabling you to tell him what he should do with the drug he created? If you want to stand behind that statement, then accept this challenge: Go behind the counter of a bank, take out some of the money, tell the manager that it's God's money ultimately, so you're taking your share, being on equal footing with the banker, and see if God's servants for justice on earth accept your argument.
Sorry Chris, It is this one:
http://www.fether.net/2009/08/22/christ-and-capitalism/
Who gets to determine if your need is letitimate? You and I working together under the discernment of the Holy Spirit. If you have a car that functions, and your want the car I have been entrusted with to drive to work, obviously your need has already been met by what has been provided to you and you have no *need* of my car. If your car does not function, and you need to get to work, you and I can work something out so that both our needs are met.
And I guess that Christ went to the cross only for personal gain, right? Profit as the primary motivator is a disgusting abuse of these texts. Sorry. Jesus tells the disciples to take up their crosses because a cross is what it looks like to follow Jesus. Jesus tells the disciples to lay down their lives because that is what it looks like to follow Jesus. What they "gain" is a new life characterized not by profit but by sacrifice and suffering. That is a foolish and imprudent investment strategy.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't know that I'll be getting around to reading Piper any time soon, to be honest. He and I have some very basic assumptions that are not shared. And since I know that in his critique of NT Wright he says that he finds himself defending Calvinism more than the Bible, I cannot take Piper seriously any more. If he is more committed to a dogma than to the scriptures that inspire that dogma, I don't know that he is someone whom I can learn a lot from. Nor I am fond of someone who says that a tornado is God's judgement because it hits a certain church, especially when he has to twist and invert Luke 13 to do so.
And while I stand behind the statement, I will not be taking you up on your challenge for two reasons. Firstly, I have no need for the money in the teller's drawer. My bills are all paid for. Secondly, there are already methods for me to attain that money should I need it. I would rather follow agreed upon procedures than be provocative simply for the sake of provocation.
But you are still assuming that the drug is ultimately the creation of the pharacist. I, obviously, do not share that assumption. I cannot tell him what to do, but I can still preach that when he is charging rates well beyond costs he is being an ill steward. I believe there is an OT prohibition of charging excessive interest, is there not?
Call it liberation theology. I don't know, it well may be. That is never anything I have studied in depth. But even if it is, that doesn't automatically disqualify it. Getting many conclusions wrong doesn't mean that some aren't right.
My reading of property and wealth as a Christian ...
If one is able, then God should be the treasure. My God and My All. In this case, money is like water. It comes in and it goes out. Nothing stays. What it goes out for is to benefit the Body. I will freely admit that this is very hard to do. When one does this without any savings for the future, you are trusting God to provide you. One this is certain. One has to be satisfied in what God provides for each day, as Paul did, John the Baptist did and so on.
The above is not for everyone.
For ordinary people, worries crowd the mind so much that no spiritual life can ever take place. For sanity's sake, one needs to set aside money for the future. It is not that they are not trusting God. This is what is better for them. They can also be good stewards of what God provides for them. The world since the beginning has operated under the theme of setting aside money for the future. Also there are enough bible passages that support this. This is not bad.
So in my view, I can understand what Chris is saying and what Darby is saying. It is up to each individual and the consequences of what they can bear and the walk with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Both are valid in my view.
Lydia,
Paula makes an assumption that property requires ownership. That is not a necessary assumption. To have something, and even to share it, does not require that you own. She is absolutely dead on in her critique of communism, but that does not make capitalism the biblical system. Personally, I think that it is somewhere inbetween: that everybody works hard so that they have something to hold in common. That sounds a little naive. Some might say it presumes human goodness. I say it requires no such thing. Rather, it presumes obeidience and deferance to the Holy Spirit. Which is why I tend to think that the church should be creating its own economic system and exchange of goods. I can't expect the whole world to act like God would require, but I think we can ask Christians to do so. What if Christian doctors agreed to see Christian patients in exchange for the services of the patient? And what if Christian medical suppliers exchanged those supplies with the doctor in exchange for treatment? And what if the Christian miner exchanged the raw material to the medical supplier in exchange for service rather than for money? What if each of us simply laid our services before each other and said, "Here is what I can offer. When you need it, ask."?
Thy Peace,
You wrote, " For sanity's sake, one needs to set aside money for the future." I realize that while the concept is completely foreign to American society, at one time people didn't save money but they trusted that their family would look out for them when they could no longer take care of themselves. I think it is a tragedy today that people are so quick to put the elderly in nursing homes so that they "don't hinder my lifestyle." Are we really that self-focused? It may be kind of an aging person to save money to assist for their own care, but we have become a very sick society when we say that the elderly *need* to count on taking care of themselves, physically or financially, until the day they die. It's not about a lack of faith in God. It's about a lack of decency on our part.
As far as IRS is concerned, one has to pay taxes on bartering of services.
Also money plays this role. It is only a tool. It is neither good nor bad.
Chris, I agree with you. It is all in the individual transformation by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Each of us walks and sees things differently. The ones to be the shining examples to others, are made to be saints by The Holy Spirit.
Chris,
The problem, once again, is that you are claiming that God owns everything while wanting to keep control of your car (rightly so, I think). You keep inserting all these qualifications. You won't allow me to place upon you any claim that you're not willing to submit to. Yet you expect others to submit to any claim someone puts on them when it comes to the fruit of their labors. You keep trying to set the rules. That's elitist. I wish you could see it. You said:
"And I guess that Christ went to the cross only for personal gain, right?"
Yes! Do you actually read the Bible for what it says or what you want it to say? For the joy set before him, [Jesus] endured the cross and is seated at the right hand of God. Is that hard to understand? Or do you just not like it?
"Profit as the primary motivator is a disgusting abuse of these texts."
Be careful, Chris. I haven't given an exegesis of these texts. I've just quoted them. So perhaps it's not my "abuse" that you're troubled by. Maybe it's the texts themselves you're disgusted with. I didn't use the word 'reward' in those texts. Jesus did. I didn't point people to a reward in Heaven as motivation. Jesus did. I hope he doesn't disgust you.
"Jesus tells the disciples to lay down their lives because that is what it looks like to follow Jesus. What they "gain" is a new life characterized not by profit but by sacrifice and suffering. That is a foolish and imprudent investment strategy."
Do you actually study theology? Striving for Heaven by losing your life here and now is a 'foolish and imprudent investment strategy'? If you didn't think there was a profit in following Jesus, you wouldn't.
I'm not saying you believe liberation theology or even that you know what it is. I'm saying your social arguments sound a lot like it. As for your fear of reward, I used to think that way too until I actually let the Bible say what it says. Now I chase God harder than ever - free and happy.
This is dragging on. I doubt you want to continue talking around each other all evening. So God bless, Chris, I look forward to seeing you in Heaven some day - even if you don't feel like it's a reward.
Darby,
God bless you, too. I look forward to the time when the Earth is fully redeemed and we can walk it together as we give praise to God. Heaven is only a glimpse of that glory!
"Paula makes an assumption that property requires ownership. That is not a necessary assumption. To have something, and even to share it, does not require that you own."
So, I could give away my neighbor's field to someone else? Or I could pick her tomatos and give them away to people?
I think Obama agrees with you. :o)
Lydia,
The problem is that you do not have your neighbors tomato or their field. I guess my problem is not so much with property as to any sense of entitlement or defensiveness that arises from having that property. With "ownership" comes a connotation that I must defend what I own. Consequently, we are less likely to be willing to sacrifice that to those whose need is more pressing.
Darby,
I read a lot of theories of the atonement in seminary and doing doctoral work--some were deeply Biblical, others less so; some made sense, others left me scratching my head; some were contradictory, others complimentary. Yours is, I think, the first economic theory of atonement I have seen. With all possible respect, Darby, you are reading the Scriptures through a capitalist lens--one foreign to a real Biblical worldview. And BTW, I would say anyone reading communism or socialism into the text was likewise reading the Scripture through a lens foreign to it.
Chris,
Don't let Darby calling you "elitist" worry you. You have a good mind, and are applying the text to the issue. I've been called worse for doing the same, and you no doubt will too. In fact, if he responds to me, he probably will call me worse. But I love him anyway.
John
John,
Chris doesn't appear to me to be worried about my opinion of him or his ideas. Why would you doubt I would respond to you, and why would you think I'd call you something? I'm trying to interact with ideas, not insult you guys. This is precisely why I decided to call it quits with Chris for now.
The atonement I cling to is the penal substitutionary one in the Bible. I'm not reading the text through a capitalist lens. If you go back and look at my comments, I've done very little explanation of any texts. I've just quoted some. So I don't know where you're getting that. What text is Chris rightly applying to the issue? Let the thief no longer steal? Thou shalt not steal? Thou shalt no covet? The one who doesn't work should not eat? Oh, wait, he's been trying to prove that there isn't private ownership, so those texts aren't even necessary. What was God thinking in inspiring them? You guys are funny.
Chris,
Just now back online. Darby has done a much better job of making biblical cases for private property ownership and for the legitimacy of reward as a motivator than I ever could have. I would just have pointed to the 5th and 8th commandments as evidence of God's perspective on the subjects.
I appreciate much the way both you and Darby have discussed these matters with directness and civility. I especially appreciate those who do not seek to denigrate the faithfullness or spirituality of "Christan-ness" of others who do not share their views, as some have done.
Be blessed.
-----
Tom
Tom,
I understand being away. More than once I've said something that required more qualification than I had time for, or that I knew people would question, and knew I wouldn't be back for a long time. I didn't doubt that you would have some sort of answer and certainly wasn't concerned that you were avoiding the issue. You have never been one for that.
In regards to the commandments, I would say that they are directing themselves towards the attitudes of those who would take what they do not need, not at the attitudes the "have's" should express in regards to what is in their care. I have been trying, primarily, to deal with the latter, but I see where you are coming from.
Bless you also, Brother. Pax Christi.
This was written in a letter by a Southern Baptist about one hundred years ago. Really !
"I wonder how many of us really believe that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive’? A woman who accepts that statement of our Lord Jesus Christ as a fact, and not as impractical idealism, will make giving a principle of her life. . . .
How many there are . . . .
who imagine that because Jesus paid it all, they need pay nothing, forgetting that the prime object of their salvation was that they should follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ in bringing back a lost world to God, and so aid in bringing the answer to the petition Our Lord taught his disciples: "Thy kingdom come."
The problem is that you do not have your neighbors tomato or their field. I guess my problem is not so much with property as to any sense of entitlement or defensiveness that arises from having that property. With "ownership" comes a connotation that I must defend what I own. Consequently, we are less likely to be willing to sacrifice that to those whose need is more pressing.
Sat Aug 22, 09:41:00 PM 2009
Thanks for expounding. It sounded like you thought we did not own what we owned. (Even though we both agree God owns everything)
You are equating any defense of property as selfishness. But would you willingly hand over money to someone you know who gambles? Or who would use it for an abortion?Or who would spend it on unnessecary extravagances?
Those would describe our government.
Lydia,
I have never been for Obamacare. So don't think that I am. I have said on more than one occasion in more than one place that I do not think that govt is the solution to anything, certainly nothing like this. I have much more hope for the church to rise up and function as such. Giving money to the govt to cure societal ills is never something I advocate: even giving that money to fund anti-abortion clinics or lawmaking. I want the church to take up its responsibility for those things.
However, would I be willing to give money to someone who gambles? So, in other words, would I give money to anyone who invests in the stock market? Give them money for such endeavors, probably not. Now, if they were trying to get money "for food," I would at least offer them food. And if they wanted money "for help," then I would so far as my resources permit assist them in finding help and holding them accountable. Whether they accepted such help when such need was a lie or secondary to their true desires, I don't know. But I would offer.
Would I give money to someone who would use it for an abortion? No. But I would provide them with a bed to sleep in and food to eat so they could carry the pregnancy to term. And then I would try to find a home for the child or assist the mother if she wanted to keep it after all.
Or for someone who would waste it on lavishness, like many churches? Probably not. But if they needed money for food because they had been too extravagent, I would ensure they got fed for so long as they were being responsible.
Again, my position is based entirely upon their need being a legitimate need. The need to feed undue addictions, lavish lifestyles, or immoral activities does not fall into that category. My reason for not giving money is not selfishness, nor a sense of ownership of the money. It is a sense of good stewardship of what I have been entrusted with, reserving those resources not for myself but for those who are truly in need of it. All defense of property is not improper, but you and I can agree that there are too many people who say, "It's mine so you can't have it" to those who could put it to much better use than the stock market, stadium seating in the church, or funding lawsuits against fellow believers for phantomed wrongs (sorry, as a MO baptist I just have to throw that last one in)?
Chris,
One thing that you touched on is something that I continue to discuss with Benevolence Ministries in church:
In the church, we can consider the character of the one who has applied for "help" whereas the gov't cannot.
The Gov't can only consider criteria, whereas reputation and character come into play when the church is in charge of the benevolence.
However, when the church uses critieria (such as membership, race, religious convictions, etc.) the gov't has no choice but to tax us and take charge of the welfare.
The church has dug its hole over the past 2000 years. It's high time we climbed out.
Darby,
I probably shouldn't post when I am tired, because I tend to get more combative then. Consequently, I appologize for my attitude last night, even though I stand by the substance of what I said.
First, if I feel led to encourage Chris, that is my decision. I did not encourage him because he appeared worried, but because I felt like encouraging him. I don't know about Chris, but sometimes I like to get affirmed, as (I think) do we all.
Second, you think you are not reading the Scriptures through a capitalist lens, that you affirm (only?) the penal substitutionary theory of atonement, and that you don't know where I am getting anything different. Well, here's where. To Chris, you said, "And I guess that Christ went to the cross only for personal gain, right?" Then you answered your own question with, "Yes! Do you actually read the Bible for what it says or what you want it to say? For the joy set before him, [Jesus] endured the cross and is seated at the right hand of God. Is that hard to understand? Or do you just not like it?" Now I will grant that you may have been just engaging in hyperbole and didn't really mean this to be taken so far so literally, but it IS what you said. If you meant it, it certainly removes altruism and agape love from the "equation" and puts a "gain" motive in, which is--wait for it--ECONOMIC! And by the way, I don't think that is part of any substitutionary theory of atonement. So again--if you really meant this--you are looking through a capitalist lens or filter.
You also said, "Oh, wait, he's been trying to prove that there isn't private ownership." I don't think Chris or Tim, and certainly not me, are arguing against private ownership rights. At most, what I would suggest is simply that private property "rights" end at the cross, the same place that mutual responsibility begins.
Have a blessed Sunday!
John
John,
I have never met a person who did not like an affirming word. I am certainly not the exception to that rule. Thank you for your kindness.
"Now I will grant that you may have been just engaging in hyperbole and didn't really mean this to be taken so far so literally, but it IS what you said."
I'm not engaging in hyperbole and I don't know any other way to take Hebrews 12:1-2 but the way it's written: "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."
It's not a capitalist reading of the text. I fall in line with the Christian Hedonistic view of Edwardsian Calvinism. Of course, you're free to claim you follow only the Bible and not a certain line of interpretation. But we all read the Bible through some lens.
As far as your last paragraph, you may not like the term "rights" but reality demands that you deal with the concept whatever you call it. If Chris didn't feel he had a right to his stuff, he wouldn't have been so quick to defend his right to stipulate how it gets used. That was what I was attempting to show. You might say it's just good stewardship, but you definitely know which stuff is your "responsibility" and which stuff is someone else's "responsibility." In that sense, everyone understands property rights. If there was no such thing as property rights in the church, John, then Paul wouldn't have to tell the thief not to steal and the commandments against coveting would be moot points.
I am glad you encouraged Chris. It is you're right to do so. I just find it strange you did it by bringing me into it. But usually encouragement comes at a time we sense discouragement. Chris is far from a victim of my comments. He seems to be way comfortable with his take on things.
Tim,
I'm not quite sure where you are coming from. Doesn't character ultimately make for a criterion? Or is it that unlike government we can use character to help ascertain true needs, which we strive to meet all other criterion aside?
As a Catholic, I am of a 'culture of life' without consideration for the 'bottom line', and this is made only possible by my acceptance of mortality, which I see as a 'falling asleep in the Lord'.
With forty-seven million Americans currently without health-care, and fourteen thousand more currently losing health care daily, we will be facing more deaths as a result of our countrymen's uncared-for needs. This is "a given".
I accept natural death as a part of life. But I wonder this:
if those who decide in our country will not sanction the government care the unprotected need, when the time comes that they are facing death, can we at least sanction end-of-life hospice care for them, so that they die with dignity?
That is something I would think is very minimal "cost-wise", and yet, is very basic to Christianity: that a fellow human be allowed to die with dignity, if we have it within our power to arrange that.
I know that we will be facing many more deaths. People can't afford to pay costs on their own, and poor communities cannot raise the money for even a single person, sometimes. For a real example, the hospitalization, surgeries, and follow-up care for a bone-marrow transplant can run as high as
nine hundred thousand dollars and this MUST BE PAID for those without health coverage before the transplant is done. Where is a poor community to find almost a million dollars in time to save just this one leukemia victim?
So what say you? Is death with dignity possible in the wealthiest country in the world?
Can we at least agree to provide hospice care for our countrymen, if nothing else?
Deaths will come, and are coming, as a result of our national situation. I can accept these deaths as the sentence of the voters on those in need, if that be the case: "It's not our job, it's not our responsibility, it's not the Christian way, it's not the role of government', it's not . . . , it's not. . . . . " I have read the arguments.
But as a Christian, a sentence of death without dignity is something I cannot accept for any American.
At least, may we agree on that?
Peaceful Sabbath has come.
Love, L's
Chris,
Sorry...
I meant that as a pastor and as a church we can consider other factors for help besides income, employment. We don't operate like gov't aid that asks only whether one meets the criteria for assistance. We can give assistance without being limited to helping those who meet only a certain set of criteria. We can refuse assistance if we discover that the applicant is "using" the system, whether their time is up or not.
And, we can discern character traits such as motives, habits, etc. before dishing out assistance.
I guess that makes since.
Sorry, tried to say a lot briefly.
Tim,
That is definately a true benefit of church benevolence as opposed to govt regulation.
Darby,
"And I guess that Christ went to the cross only for personal gain, right?
Yes! Do you actually read the Bible for what it says or what you want it to say? For the joy set before him, [Jesus] endured the cross and is seated at the right hand of God. Is that hard to understand? Or do you just not like it?"
Do you mean to think that the author of Hebrews insisted that Jesus went to the cross because of what he stood to profit for Himself?
You also stated that humans won't do anything without considering what they stood to gain? Do you mean to think that Jesus motivated his disciples by material gain?
If that is reading through a Christian Hedonist lens, then please try a different prescription...
"With forty-seven million Americans currently without health-care, and fourteen thousand more currently losing health care daily, we will be facing more deaths as a result of our countrymen's uncared-for needs. This is "a given".
A bunch will still die because the first of ANY help for the uninsured won't start until after the next presidential election.
As the plan is being read, more and more information is coming out that is quite interesting.
Tim, you said:
"Do you mean to think that the author of Hebrews insisted that Jesus went to the cross because of what he stood to profit for Himself?"
The author of Hebrews did. Have you read it? If I said, "I went to the store to get some bread," would you insist I went to the store to get some milk? If the writer of Hebrews says that Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him, who are you to insist it was for some other reason that you like better? Just let the Bible say what it says, Tim.
"You also stated that humans won't do anything without considering what they stood to gain? Do you mean to think that Jesus motivated his disciples by material gain?"
How else do you interpret the sermon on the mount Tim? Have you read it? What is wrong with you guys' ability to simply read a text. We're not talking about difficult passages, like when tongues cease or what the millennium means. We're talking about simple things like, "store your treasure in Heaven where the thief won't steal it." We're talking about, "He who loses his life for my sake will gain it." Why would anyone want to lose his life for the Christ's sake? So he will gain it.
I'm really questioning what kind of training in theology and exegesis some of you have had. I think my eyes are reading these simple, straight-forward texts just fine.
I should clarify my last sentence since the smile on my face didn't translate well into words. I'm not trying to deride anyone's education or training. I'm just kind of shocked that there are people who are reading my comments as though they've never heard of such things before. That's all.
Darby,
Selling the gospel for profit was never something any of my professors took the time to address. We all thought it was so antithetical to Biblical teachings that it never came up. Not even any of my fellow students even mentioned anything quite along these lines.
Personally, I'm more surprised that you heard to interpret the Bible this way than that Tim or I haven't. Then again, I haven't exactly submitted myself to the teachings of Calvin, Edwards, or Piper (though I have studied them, submission is another thing entirely). But coming from that sort of perspective, I can see how one can go from "God made me more special than you," to "I'm entitled to win the rat race and you're not because God made me more special than you."
Darby,
Let's just say that the "God is out to glorify himself" stuff is for the $1.99 devotional calendars with flowers on them.
If correct, it needs unpacking. However, as John Bright pointed out, the Kingdom of God is the center of the biblical story.
If you are alluding to treasures in heaven, I would not agree with you that they are material, but that is the call to invest one's life in things that will endure through eternity - not material gain.
I have read Hebrews, studied it under Richard Hays and David Moffitt at Duke, read Koester and Attridge's commentaries, not to mention Fred Craddock's, and nowhere do they suggest that the "joy" that Jesus was after was some self-glorification or material gain.
Reward as participation in God's Future Kingdom and living in light of that participation in the present I can see, but reward as materialistic...I must have missed that one.
The major presupposition that I am sure that we disagree on is this:
Right now, is the world the way God wants it?
If it is, then we can enjoy without worry for our neighbor.
But, if the kingdom (i.e., sovereignty of God) is a future reality, then we cannot sit back and enjoy, but have a mission to complete to deomnstrate God's compassion and preach the good news of the coming kingdom of God manifest in Christ Jesus.
I need to apologize for the sarcasm too :)
Chris,
"Selling the gospel for profit was never something any of my professors took the time to address. We all thought it was so antithetical to Biblical teachings that it never came up."
Who said anything about selling the gospel for profit. Apparently you read my comments like you read the Bible - very selectively. Either deal with the texts I quoted or don't. But please don't try to carry on a conversation with me based on speculations of what you think well respected dead theologians thought. I can interact with you based on what I know about the differing theologies. You appear to be guessing. It's just coming across defensive.
I'm going to our Evening Gathering. Let me say that I do love you brothers and am not trying to be needlessy offensive. Only offensive enough to help you see things my way. :)
Chris,
"But coming from that sort of perspective, I can see how one can go from "God made me more special than you," to "I'm entitled to win the rat race and you're not because God made me more special than you.""
I am sure that you can see how misuses of predestination have led to all sorts of atrocities in the history of the church.
I know that many who believe in predestination do not take that step, but it is always a danger.
No, Darby, I don't feel as though I am reading you selectively.
You have repeated on numerous occasions that the only reason somebody would or should follow Christ is to get something out of it. The Gospel is a means of profiteering. When you speak of it, you speak of something for you to gain or for the person you are talking with to gain by believing what it is you tell them.
I also never said that those theologians thought like you (though you did say you are pretty well in line with a particular reading of Edwards). But from the elitist bent built into their theologies, it is easy to get to the more encompassing elitism of your position.
Tim,
Yep. Not everybody goes there. But it sure isn't ruled out.
Chris,
All I can say is that I hope I'm as knowledgeable as you when I grow up.
Forgive my ignorance.
I thought that Christ cared for the sick with compassion;
but it was the money-changers that aroused His wrath?
Reminds me of that story of the rich and the poor in the OT:
A poor man found a lamb and brought it home. He loved the lamb and cared for it, feeding it from his own food and holding it while it slept.
A rich man with many flocks received a guest and needed to serve a lamb for dinner. He refused to take from his own resources, which were enormous, but had no problem taking the loved only lamb of the poor man, killing it, and serving it to his guest.
A parable. Of course, not something to take seriously in comparison with our modern situation: when many who are blessed, in the wealthiest of nations, see no need to take from their own enormous substance so that the poor may keep the ones they love safe from sickness and loss. No comparison.
Just a story. From the OT.
Darby,
You never answered whether or not the "treasures" the follower of Christ gains are material or not.
Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? How do you read "blessed?" Is this Christian Hedonism merely a mask for a type of prosperity gospel?
How can we preach a gospel of enjoying God's blessings in the midst of a lost and dying world, especially since we could do so much more?
I ask these as serious questions for your exegesis of the text.
Tim, you said:
"Reward as participation in God's Future Kingdom and living in light of that participation in the present I can see, but reward as materialistic...I must have missed that one."
Though I would say God's future Kingdom has broken into this present age through the gospel, this is basically what I'm talking about. The reward isn't material prosperity now. It is spiritual prosperity now with the promise of full prosperity in the age to come. I believe in a material age to come on a new earth, so the reward will be material as well as spiritual. That's how I read the sermon on the mount. "Blessed" is basically "ultimately happy." Give up your claim to your best life now for the best possible life later. The Christian life is one of delayed gratification.
Darby,
I think that clears up a lot of things. However, I still see flaws in that the only motivation we serve God and that Christ died is for the reward that we stand to gain as if we weighed the propositions of different things life has to offer.
Ultimately, I understand Jesus as motivated by compassion. I understand Paul and the apostle's preaching as motivated by what the world stands to gain by the gospel.
And, though I am right their with you as far as your understanding of God's future, I also believe that we not only preach God's future but bring a taste of Rev. 21-22 to earth in our service to the world.
Which, bringing the discussion full circle, means for me that the church must and is obligated to lead the way in service and mercy to the world, as in this case of health care.
Though I have concerns for this particular health care proposal, the rising costs of health care and private insurance are grave concerns that the church must address.
Word verification: "pestor" Is that an annoying pastor?
Hi TIM MARSH,
You wrote this, "for me that the church must and is obligated to lead the way in service and mercy to the world, as in this case of health care"
I can agree with that. My church teaches that we are obligated to try to see justice done for all concerned.
I'm afraid the praises of the capitalist system have been vaunted at the expense of human life. I cannot understand this.
There is a 'collective' response that Christians can make for the sake of suffering people.
The drug company executives and the HMO trustees have their paid advocates, but who will speak for the poor?
We need to speak for justice for those who are vulnerable, not just for those who profit from our broken system.
Love, L's
fyi
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=36027
Religious left panics over Obamacare
Not sure how you feel about a Far Left Conservative Christian holding you up as an example of the Christianity I was raised in, and still admire - but here you go anyway:
http://markwadestone.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/one-and-counting/
Consider the Source:
Hmmmmmm . . . 'A conservative 'Christian' think-tank. I think I understand.
"The Institute on Religion and Democracy is a conservative Christian thinktank that often criticizes the agencies of Mainline Protestantism, ecumenical groups such as the National and World Council of Churches and increasingly liberal evangelical groups, along with Catholic orders".
Tim,
"However, I still see flaws in that the only motivation we serve God and that Christ died is for the reward that we stand to gain as if we weighed the propositions of different things life has to offer."
Then we would disagree, because this is precisely what I think the Bible teaches. The book of Hebrews, particularly chapters 11-12 are huge on this. Consider 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." And consider Moses: "By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward."
Why did Moses choose to follow God rather than Pharaoh? FOR or because he was looking to the reward. I haven't even mentioned Abraham seeking a city whose builder is God. I am praying you'll consider what I'm saying, because such things used to rub up against my "sacrificial sensibilities" until I just let these texts say what they're saying.
Thanks for the interaction. And thanks Wade, for allowing us to be so far off topic. :)
Please tell Chuck that the least of these is talking about Christians, not everybody in the world.
Also: Why would he trust Anderson Cooper? How does he know he is telling the truth?
'the least of these'. . .
How do they KNOW that THEY are 'Christians', Jeff?
How do WE know that THEY
are 'Christians' ?
Darby,
Hebrews 11 is written to illuminate the faithfulness of those who worshipped the Lord under the terms of the initial covenant and "did not receive what was promised."
Hebrews 12, in contrast, is a call to consider Jesus, the author of the New Covenant, who did receive what was promised. The audience is called to consider "how much more" they should look to the faithfulness of Christ, his exaltation, and to consider that they are heirs to the promises and terms of the New Covenants.
In both instances it is the character's faithfulness that motivates the audience, as opposed to thought of reward, whether it be those of Hebrews 11 or Jesus of Hebrews 12.
What I find so concerning, after sleeping on this, is that rewards are based upon a system of merit. However, salvation and consequent status of sonship for all followers of Christ are gifts of GRACE and therefore, are not earned.
When you highlighted the Sermon on the Mount, the irony of the Beatitudes is that the recipients of the "blessing" are not those that society of that culture would have considered to be blessed. They are not blessed because of moral attributes. Rather, because they are recipients of the Kingdom, they, the ones society would not have expected, are blessed.
After reading the text and letting the text say what it says, I do not extract individual reward as the motivation for following Christ.
Tim, you said: "In both instances it is the character's faithfulness that motivates the audience, as opposed to thought of reward, whether it be those of Hebrews 11 or Jesus of Hebrews 12... After reading the text and letting the text say what it says, I do not extract individual reward as the motivation for following Christ."
I give up this discussion based on these statements. I gave you exact quotes from the writer of Hebrews explaining exactly why Moses followed God and why Jesus went to the cross, and you've chosen to somehow read them and then dismiss them. I ask you, Tim, did I insert the word "reward" into the text? You're problem isn't with me, it's with the words in the Bible. You've asked me for my reasons, and I've given you specific texts. Either explain to me your justification for ignoring Hebrews and the sermon on the mount while ignoring the words used, or we're finished on this.
I know they are Christians because the Bible clearly tells us they are Christians. Read it again. The answer is clear.
But JEFF,
Must 'the least of His' KNOW that they are Christians ?
Suppose they don't. Love, L's
The story of Lazarus 'outside the gates'
and the rich man who ignored his need
does it have an ending in 'the Bible'?
Yes. It does.
Oh, BTW, the story is told to us by Christ Himself.
People may doubt at times, but people should know they are Christians.
Jeff, I wonder how you "know" all these things. There are some things we may NOT know, that are known only to the Mind of God. To act like we 'know' the extent of another's situation with God is not possible.
I would hate to imagine on the Day of the Lord that any soul would stand there and tell Christ who it is who is to be 'saved', or not to be 'saved'. If it cannot be proper then, it certainly is not a good thing to do now.
.
There are those who have no way of knowing Christ other than the way they are treated and cared for.
The 'gifts' we take for granted were not given to them. The 'gifts' they have been given from God are so that we may learn of Him through their humility.
And all of us have much to learn.
Love, L's
My Bible (Protestant) tells me that one can know for sure if one is saved.
I have a King James Version. It was left to me by my Grandmother of blessed memory.
Can you show me the quotes where it says that a person who does not speak or read, 'knows' that he is 'saved'?
Or do you think it's necessary that he be able to say he accepts Christ before he can be saved?
I need to see your verses so that I may look them up. Thank you for helping me.
For myself and my family:
My faith is in the mercy and the compassion of the Living Word.
In Him do I place my trust. If all that is true about His Mercy were written, the Bible would be so large, it would fill the entire Universe.
Be peaceful,
Love, L's
Romans 10:9-10
Also listen to Wade's messages on I John....it speaks of how we can have assurance of our salvation.
L's I reread your posts. I wonder if we were talking past each other.
Are you asking me if I can know the condition of another person as it pertains to their salvation?
My point about assurance at least for me is based on my understanding of the Bible. I can know that I am saved! I do not know if others are saved.
Does that help?
Dear JEFF,
Yes, it does.
I want to thank you for taking the time to read those posts.
Love, L's
Darby,
I see the word "reward." That is fine. However the text must be interpreted in light of the whole. Same thing with "sovereign" and "predestine" and "glory." All these words must be defined and read within their larger historical and literary contexts.
My problem is not with the text, it is with your interpretation of the text. You already admitted a lens, so please, defend the lens. We both see the words, tell me why I should abandon my lens for yours.
In the end, no one wants to 'destroy' economic and political 'justice'.
But, in maintaining justice, we can infuse it with 'love' and rise higher as a society.
When our society is 'just' for only a portion of our people;
and there is no compassion for the others, what are we?
There is a saying among the Hebrew people: 'if I am not for myself, who will be? if I am only for myself, what am I ?
More truth and sanity regarding the health care debate. A corrective to the mistaken notion (putting it kindly) that it is compassionate and Christlike to support government health care. True justice and real love demands that this government program be opposed.
Tim,
I've told you my lens. I have no idea what your lens is. However, it appears to me that your lens is fine with the word reward as long as you can explain away its meaning so that it doesn't mean reward anymore. It seems you also want to strip sovereign, predestine, and glory of their meaning as well. It seems to be a pattern that any word which you might find offensive gets stripped of meaning must or "defined and read within their larger historical and literary contexts." Again, I haven't given you an interpretation. I've just quoted the texts. I think I'd be afraid to send you to the store with a grocery list based on the conversation we've had about a few simple texts of Scripture.
You just don't see 'good Christian people' rising up to help the forty-seven million Americans without health care. It's a lovely thought, but it hasn't happened.
Something has needed to be done for a long time.
"Justice" for profiteers.
"Gratuity" for the suffering ones.
Why not both?
Why ONLY support the interests of the "haves"?
L's you seem to hold the govt in high esteem! Do you think we can trust them? I don't.
Jeff, I hold the American people in great esteem. There have been times when the 'goodness' of our people exceeded 'reason', if you know about the Marshall Plan.
Sometimes, we forget, we are the government.
We have obligations to the common good of our people. Basic health care is part of the right to life.
Read the story of Lazarus and the rich man as told by Christ. There is a lesson there that teaches that it is not the wealthy that God opposes, so much as their unwillingness to share with those they know are in great need.
The 'extremists' in our country are 'anti-government'. But the patriots in our country have defended nnd are defending, as we speak, our 'way of life.'
Justice for the rich. No problem.
But let it be infused with 'goodness' and with 'compassion' for the ones who sit 'outside the gate'. I think we are called by Christ to honor this.
Love, L's
Darby,
Fair enough.
"I think I'd be afraid to send you to the store with a grocery list based on the conversation we've had about a few simple texts of Scripture."
When I am given a grocery list, I get what is on the list. When I am given something as sacred as the Bible, I engage in the best possible hermeneutics without regard to a favorite theologian or pastor's systematic theology.
The Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus is the lens through which I read.
Re-reading your comments, you assume that "the joy set before Jesus" was Jesus' personal reward. Is that all that phrase could mean?
And, you never responded to how reward is merit-based whereas grace is something God gives.
When we pray in secret and God rewards, what is the reward? There is a difference in reward as something that we merit before God as works to be earned, rather than God hears the prayers of those who commune with him in secret.
You compared the "reward" texts to the motivation of entrepeneurs (sp.?) to make capital for themselves to these Biblical texts on rewards. And, you alluded that Jesus himself works in this way.
I find something wrong with that. I would not continue to treat verses as gocery lists but texts to interpret in light of their historical and literary contexts.
Again, where does the big picture of Christian Hedonism evolve from, the Bible or the Westminster Catechism?
Tim,
Are we talking around each other? Again, I've told you my lens. And I knew you'd accuse me of following some theology of man rather than Scripture, as though your theology is simply biblical and doesn't coincide with any other human's interpretation. You gave me what almost everyone would describe as their lens. "The Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus" is what most would say they're doing. But it's still your idea of "the biblical theology of the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus." I would say my lens is the same thing.
As far as using reward for a motivation, this is simply the way it is. I notice you haven't given me Jesus' interpretation of the Hebrews texts' yet.
Why do you choose your point of view and not mine? Because you think your point of view is right. Why does it matter if it's right? You might say it's because you want to please God. But why do you want to please God? You might say because it's right. But why do you care if it's right? I hope you see how if you keep asking questions in this way, eventually you'll have to come down to some form of "because it's best for me if I see it this way.
Long story short, and this is really the crux of the whole matter--Liberals cannot stand the fact that Doctors and nurses are well paid. Period. The idea of a specialist making $250,000 to them is sinful beyond their ability to express their outrage. They will do anything, including trashing our healthcare system, to see to it that health care professionals are not well paid. It's the same reason they go after "big business". It has nothing to do with helping the little guy. It has everything to do with the entitlement mentality that liberals have and how enraged they are at the very notion that someone might get ahead in life by their smarts and hard work.
That is what the health care reform issue is about.
There, I said it.
Joe,
Good points, however I think the current health care debate is about a handful of Marxists taking over the government of the U.S.
Joe,
You know, you are right.
What is sinful is all the money that we throw at our "celebrities" - professional athletes, actors, actresses, musicians (if that is what we should call them), and others who make ungodly amounts to entertain us.
Joe, I notice you are a 'Bama fan, but we both know Bear Bryant never made $4 million annually.
If all these people gave half (like Zacchaeus) to the poor, we would not have some of the health care problems that we have.
The truth is, though some of these folks do make good livings, they must pay outrageous malpractice insurance prices, work long and difficult hours, survive medical school and intense resicencies, and often miss precious time with their families. They do not "play golf" until late in their career when they can afford to limit their work.
Would you accept an 'amen' from me?
I would.
Your point about medical school and the long hours are just two of the reasons they deserve every dime they get paid. Most people don't realize just how freakin' smart you have to be in order to be a doctor. When I nearly went blind this past May I was glad to have a doctor who graduated summa cum laude from his undergrade and cum laude from medical school. I am not jealous of how much he makes. He works from before sunup to after sun down most days and is really on call all.the.time.
You want to start taking away people's paychecks, lets start with Hollywood. As a matter of fact, why not just impose a 50% tax on any money made in the enteratinment industry including sports and use that to fund healthcare for indigent persons.
Darby,
Is that how you want to leave it: "I hope you see how if you keep asking questions in this way, eventually you'll have to come down to some form of "because it's best for me if I see it this way."
Because this is reader-response criticism at its best. All meaning of the text is in the eyes of the reader and no meaning can be found outside the reader.
Are we talking past one another? Probably. Kingdom theology is new, so I imagine that it "sounds like what everyone says they are doing when they read scripture."
I cannot see that in the text, followers of Jesus are motivated by reward, as in they are doing something solely because of what they will receive. That they are rewarded is a given.
Is the reward merited? No. It is a gift of grace, not merit. Doing something because of the reward implies that the reward is merited.
And finally, could the joy set before Jesus be the many sons he brings to glory by suffering? (Heb. 2:10)
Our words have been harsh sounding according to the comments on the blog. It is hard to sound nice when writing on the run. However, I have read some of your blog and know that you are making an impact for the kingdom. May God bless you always as you do. I have appreciated dialoging with you.
Joe,
I would agree. Having a brother-in-law who went through hell as an emergency room physician in his residency, I believe that financially, he deserves all he can earn.
And, I would vote for the tax as well.
Tim,
Likewise. I've read your blog as well and know you are well-reasoned and articulate. That's probably why we've interacted this long. I am thankful for your discussion and for Wade letting us carry on. God bless.
Hi Everyone,
My brother makes way more than the $250,000 for his personal salary. He considers his practice a 'business' as he has many employees, some of whom are highly trained professionals.
And yet, he supports a 'gov't health care alternative'.
He works from six in the morning to eight or nine at night, unless he is on-call for his colleagues' group.
About the 'health care option'?
He says 'it's way past due.'
He says we are all 'paying' for the care of indigent people now, but they are so sick by the time they get to an emergency room, that their care is much more expensive, and is 'passed on' to us. They are 'stabilized', then discharged until 'the next time'.
There is a lot more to this issue than can be resolved by throwing labels at one another and having citizens 'shouted down' by conservatives at town hall meetings.
It IS a moral and ethical issue that will not go away. It's time to invite Lazarus to come in from outside the gates, to sit down at the table of the rich man and be fed, so that he may live.
Why? The rich man has more need of Lazarus than he knows.
And there are innumerable ways to help citizens who can't help themselves regarding health care. And of those other options, none of them would involve congress or the senate being able to exempt themselves and their families from the substandard health care they intend to force us to submit to under their plan.
As usual, political, moral, and theological liberalism elevates symbolism or substance, feelings over facts, moralizing over morality. It's quite tiring, actually.
For those (like L's) who cling to the false hope of salvation from the State, I offer this:
The Government Can
:)
Tom, I don't know what was funnier--your comment (which was terribly true by the way) or the video.
By the way, that's one computer monitor you owe me for the Diet Dr. Pepper I just spewed all over it when it shot out my nose from me laughing so hard. "The Government can..." Sammy Davis Jr couldn't have sung it better.
Forget the video, I'm laughing at Joe's reaction. :))))
Love, L's
"The idea of a specialist making $250,000 to them is sinful beyond their ability to express their outrage. They will do anything, including trashing our healthcare system, to see to it that health care professionals are not well paid. It's the same reason they go after "big business"."
The dirty secret is how much many government jobs pay. And the benefits are some of the best out there.
So basically, it is private business they have a problem with.
I would like to ask L's why Obama's aunt has to live on welfare in Mass? Or his half brother in Kenya lives in a tin shack on poverty row? Obama made 4 mill on his book deal.
Yet, she wants me to believe he really cares about people. (Never mind the born alive bills he lobbied for aborted babies born alive to be denied any medical attention)
NYT > Health Care Fit for Animals By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF.
Opponents suggest that a “government takeover” of health care will be a milestone on the road to “socialized medicine,” and when he hears those terms, Wendell Potter cringes. He’s embarrassed that opponents are using a playbook that he helped devise.
“Over the years I helped craft this messaging and deliver it,” he noted.
Mr. Potter was an executive in the health insurance industry for nearly 20 years before his conscience got the better of him. He served as head of corporate communications for Humana and then for Cigna.
He flew in corporate jets to industry meetings to plan how to block health reform, he says. He rode in limousines to confabs to concoct messaging to scare the public about reform. But in his heart, he began to have doubts as the business model for insurance evolved in recent years from spreading risk to dumping the risky.
Never mind the born alive bills he lobbied for aborted babies born alive to be denied any medical attention
I would LOVE to hear the liberal spin on that one.
Hi LYDIA,
No, I don't want that.
I think you can decide for yourself how you feel about another person.
Why would you think I would expect any different?
I am all for people thinking for themselves.
But I like a good, civil debate, with respect for one another.
I think civil discussion helps the process of clarifying one's own priorities:
why DO we speak for the ones we support and not for the 'others'?
Why DO we care that there is justice for some, but not for the 'others'?
And why, sometimes, are there people who decide that justice for some comes at the cost of mercy for others?
Sometimes we can be 'right' and 'lawful' and at the same time, very very inhumane.
My hope is that those who seem determined to 'fix a great chasm' between:
the ones in our society who wear purple and fine linen,
and
those who sit 'covered with sores' outside the gate,
will someday be able to reconsider the matter in their consciences, by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
There is still time.
Love, L's
Hi JOE,
Was there another law on the books at that time that protected the live-born infants?
?
L's,
So, good is evil and evil good. And those pesky negative truths can be overcome by trying to make the messenger look mean and uncaring. Never mind the facts.
Trust me, I know the drill real well.
"Was there another law on the books at that time that protected the live-born infants?"
We need a law to give medical attention to aborted babies born alive?
"I would LOVE to hear the liberal spin on that one."
Joe, you have already heard it here if you read the thread. The spin is that we do not care about old or sick people just aborted babies.
Never mind those negative pesky facts we have mentioned here. Especially the tiny detail that this plan will not start until AFTER the next presidential election. It is amazing what folks can learn when the comb the details in the plan. And I thought it was an emergency health crisis.
Hi Lydia,
Please know that you own you OWN words.
And please, again, know that I want others to think for themselves.
And speak for themselves.
I speak for myself.
You do not speak for me.
Love, L's
P.S. I speak for the ones who need OUR help, however we may be able to give it. Please know that.
There are many who see absolutely NO HYPOCRISY in those who want the 'unborn' and 'live-born' protected;
and also would deny a health care solution to these children when they are of age.
But is does beg the question: is death resulting from 'being dumped because the insurance company thinks you are too risky' in line with:
A. good Christian-capitalist values that award justice to the profiteers who have no obligation to continue a policy they deem 'too risky' for the care of a person who WILL die without medical intervention.
or
B. something immoral, unethical, and dare I say unspeakably un-Christian?
The debate continues.
And the questions to ponder.
There is 'still time' for us to debate and find a solution.
But people will die today, and tomorrow, while they wondered how the insurance companies could 'get away with it'. We know how the profiteers 'get away with it'.
At least, this, you CAN know to be true. Love, L's
I'm not sure to be honest with you, L's. However, does that make it ok for him to try to make it not only legal to not care for them but illegal to care for them?
wtreat,
There is no doubt in my mind that you would be a widower and I would be blind under a government healthcare system. We can, and should, help folks who can't help themselves. We can do that without taking away peoples private insurance or rationing healthcare.
A pre-existing law was on the books. The 'new law' was 'redundant'.
There is never any excuse for removing life support from a living being, unless they themselves have a 'living will' that states otherwise.
Playing 'politics' is what happened. For those who didn't know about the pre-existing law, they WERE manipulated by politicians for sure. Of course, they would be irate at Obama and that WAS the intended result of those behind the whole thing.
So Obama lobied for this law knowing it was redundant to make people made at him?? I mean, you're serious. And again, it's ok for him to lobby for that law just because it was redundant? So it was an April Fool's joke?
L's,
Just for the record, I am not saying that I am against a public health care option.
However, there has been so much mis-information from all sides of the politcal spectrum.
When my daughter was born my wife had bronchitis. She gets a terrible cough with it. She had been taking Robitussin before her C-Section and brought that Robitussin to the hospital. The nurses confiscated it and told her that she must take the same medicine given by the hospital. Each Robitussin Shot (they came in little pre-measured cups) cost $50. I could have bought 10 bottles at Wal Mart for that price. We are paying for the care that others receive in the emergency room when we must pay $50 for a tablespoon of Robitussin.
We need something to make this fair. In turn, we need Christians to sacrifice voluntarily in order to provide the kind of care needed.
We have a huge problem with the amount of money that goes into our buildings and "ministries" and not enough going out.
I admire your passion and spirit. Ultimately I cannot agree with the particular plan that is being shoved through Congress. I do not even know what it is.
Furthermore, I agree with your understanding of a Christian's obligation to the poor. We have to be shrewd in the way we help. Many who belong to the category of the poor are con-artists who are feeding drug habits (Believe me, I see them all the time). Others are legit needs.
We must have a way that we can distinguish between the two.
Hi TIM MARSH,
Thank you for responding. The 'passion' I express is genuine and it is for the ones who desperately need care.
I do know about the 'scammers' also. Problem is, some very fine Christian people are now supporting 'scammers' of a different kind: profiteers who have no conscience. This breaks my heart. I do not BLAME these Christians. I think that they are mis-guided by the tremendous publicity that the profiteers have poured forth into the media to keep their act going.
I am not naive about 'the infallibility of the government'.
But people have a right to live that is now being denied them: for profit's sake.
This must end.
If the rhetoric and shouting ever ceases, the profiteers will be terrified. I ask for civil debate. I ask for the suffering to have a place at the table of the debate. They need to be heard.
They, too, have a right to live.
Love, L's
Ok, how does this sound for a plan.
All politiician in Washington are wealthy BEFORE they get there. You don't make it to Washington without money. So, we take every dime of their retirement away from them right now. We don't fund any retirement for them at all. We don't fund any benefits for them whatsoever. They pay for their own travel and anything else they need out of their own pocket. Freeze their salaries and never allow them to have another pay raise ever. Then, we take the millions of dollars that we would save and use that to help folks who cannot help themselves with their medical care.
Hi JOE,
What about this:
Senators and Congressmen have a terrific, effective health-care plan. Why not expand that program in a way to assure fairness for all concerned?
It could be done.
The plan itself has worked for the politicians quite well.
Thanks, Joe, for trying to come up with ideas. That is what I want people to do: to think about how to solve the problems we must solve, because lives are at stake.
Love, L's
L's,
I think I like my plan better for two reasons. 1) It would involve no additional tax burden. We'd be taking money away from one expenditure and putting it towards another expenditure. 2) It takes away from people who have leeched off of society for far too long anyway and would then help those who need help. Kinda the whole Robin Hood thing. Plus, we would get better politicians out of it. Those in office now would flee their jobs like rats in a burning barn. Those who would replace them would be up there to serve the people not to get rich off the people.
Even better idea...
House and Senate Members get paid (not earn) $174,000 of our hard earned money every year. 100 Senators plus 435 in the House plus the extra paid to the Speaker, Minority and Majority leaders (about $100,000) comes out to about $93 MILLION dollars we pay them in salary.
Since they're so concerned about the people, they should show that by taking a $100,000 pay cut. I could live VERY well on $74,000 a year and I think they could too. That would free up, are you sitting down kids, something like $53,000,000 for us to use helping people who need help with healthcare.
Yes, it's a sacrifice, but it's one I'd be perfectly willing to make.
Hi JOE,
Seventy-fou K used to be a lot of money. But now, our politicians probably couldn't rent a two-bedroom slum near Capitol Hill for that per year.
Come to think of it, it would do them good to see how the 'others' must live. Imagine, when they tried to vote themselves raises but wouldn't consider increasing the minimum wage for their constituents.
Your idea has some good points, there, Joe. Keep thinking.
Love, L's
"I do know about the 'scammers' also. Problem is, some very fine Christian people are now supporting 'scammers' of a different kind: profiteers who have no conscience. "
Note the backhanded insult covered with sweet syrupy words.
But being direct and discussing facts is mean and hateful.
See, only L's really cares about people. And the ONLY way we can prove we really do care about people is to support this plan. Otherwise we are supporting greedy profiteers.
(When reality has been expressed here: insurance companies are operating on less than 3% profit margins. The hospitals are charging 50 bucks for cough syrup to make up for the low prices they are forced to charge for medicare/medicaid patients)
Never mind the facts.
All politiician in Washington are wealthy BEFORE they get there. You don't make it to Washington without money. So, we take every dime of their retirement away from them right now. We don't fund any retirement for them at all. We don't fund any benefits for them whatsoever. They pay for their own travel and anything else they need out of their own pocket. Freeze their salaries and never allow them to have another pay raise ever. Then, we take the millions of dollars that we would save and use that to help folks who cannot help themselves with their medical care.
Fri Aug 28, 01:12:00 PM 2009
Joe, here is an example for you. My district elected a congressman about 6 years ago who served ONE term because he was so pitiful. Guess what? He has a lifetime pension and health care for 2 years of service in DC.
The whole point of government health care that the feds have is that WE pay for it. To make that health care available to all would break this country. That is why they are exempt from this plan.
Seventy-fou K used to be a lot of money. But now, our politicians probably couldn't rent a two-bedroom slum near Capitol Hill for that per year.
I'm sorry. I missed the part where that's supposed to bother me.
A pre-existing law was on the books. The 'new law' was 'redundant'.
There is never any excuse for removing life support from a living being, unless they themselves have a 'living will' that states otherwise.
Playing 'politics' is what happened. For those who didn't know about the pre-existing law, they WERE manipulated by politicians for sure. Of course, they would be irate at Obama and that WAS the intended result of those behind the whole thing.
Fri Aug 28, 12:27:00 PM 2009
You are going to have to prove there was a pre existing law that stated directly that medical attention was to be denied to born alive aborted babies.
We have an abundance of historical proof that price fixing does not work. It brings rationing. Whether it is gas, food or health care. But some elite politicians always think they can make it work.
We also have historical proof that Christians were on the forefront of funding and supporting health care in this country. UNTIL government regulated it to the point it became impossible for many reasons.
L's, those greedy Christians you accuse of supporting profiteers...remember them? Well, it just so happens that one is my brother who is right now working through a ton of government red tape to put a FREE community health clinic in an inner city high school...completely funded and supported by greedy capitalistic Christians in our city.
Wonder if you have any idea how hard it is to help people...thanks to our government.
Food for thought--Here is a list of everything that our government runs that it runs effectively and efficiently:
THAT is why government run health care is a stupid idea. Anything they do, they do badly and it costs 3 times what it would if they would get thore nose out of it.
I'm going to speak for the interests of the uninsured.
Without anger, ridicule, or insults.
I'm not one to ask for justice for the 'scammers' who have duped Christian people who have supported their interests down the line. No apologies.
My conscience is at peace. So I don't need to get angry or abusive towards anyone. No answers will come from that kind of behavior: it just draws attention away from solving the problems. It's an old trick.
But most people are wise to it, especially now after the organized 'displays' at the town hall meetings designed to intimidate and shout down speakers.
It really back-fired there. Americans are not stupid.
The debate will continue until the problem is solved, by 'responsible' Americans who want to do what is right, for EVERYONE involved.
No L's, you are just trying to frame the debate from your perspective instead of dealing with facts and issues. When it gets to details, you simply change the subject.
It is very easy to accuse folks of being greedy, hateful and angry simply because they do not see that turning over the entire health care industry to government is smart as we know it will NOT bring the result most are looking for. We already have proof of that.
But then, your mantra of caring for the suffering does not extend to born alive aborted babies. So would that mean that those who support Obama obviously do not care about the least of these.
The debate will continue until the problem is solved, by 'responsible' Americans who want to do what is right, for EVERYONE involved.
Fri Aug 28, 04:30:00 PM 2009
And that can ONLY happen when Congress and OBAMA and his family are on the exact same plan as us peasants.
I am still wondering about his half brother living in poverty in Kenya. Any thoughts on his caring and compassion for his own family?
Lydia, you do not speak for me anymore than you spoke for Chris on Paula's blog, and he called you on it.
It doesn't work.
Wrong league.
You own what you say about people.
Your words are your own responsibility.
I am responsible for my own words.
Love, L's
"you do not speak for me anymore than you spoke for Chris on Paula's blog, and he called you on it."
I "spoke" for Chris? You will have to show me that one.
"I am responsible for my own words."
Exactly.
You just think you can wrap your ad hominem Tu quoque in plenty of syrup and sugar and that makes it ok. And you think you can continue to frame the debate with the same tired mantra ignoring facts and questions put to you.
I am on to your tactics. That is all.
You just think you can wrap your ad hominem Tu quoque in plenty of syrup and sugar and that makes it ok. And you think you can continue to frame the debate with the same tired mantra ignoring facts and questions put to you.
Preach it, sister!!!
Wait did I just say that? hahahahahahaha
on August the 23 at 4:10
Chris replied to you this:
"Lydia,
First off, I never suggested that we do so. On the thread, from the beginning, I have said I was against govt run health care"
I felt he handled himself very well in the face of what he was experiencing. He will make a fine minister, I think. I admire his patience coupled with his ability to defend himself when someone else at best, misunderstands him, and at worst, well, we won't go there.
Chris did very well indeed.
I'm not the only one to notice his gifts. Love, L's
P.S. Lydia, I'm thinking that you may not be able to have a civil dialogue with me. I can handle this 'commentary', but the thing is, I don't think it is a 'healthy' dialogue, although I know that this kind of thing is much admired by fundamentalists as a Christian way of behaving towards others.
I do not think it is either 'Christian' or 'healthy'.
I'm happy to talk about the needs of the uninsured and how best we can help them.
I'm not willing to continue any conversation that descends into something less than civil. I'm sure you can understand that I don't share your fundamentalist values as to what is permissible in how Christians treat one another or others. Please understand I mean you no disrespect. You are entitled to treat others the way you want to.
Once again, you are responsible for what you do and what you say.
Love, L's
"I can handle this 'commentary', but the thing is, I don't think it is a 'healthy' dialogue, although I know that this kind of thing is much admired by fundamentalists as a Christian way of behaving towards others."
Absolute PERFECT example of ad hominem Tu quoque!
BTW: L's, you did not publish where I spoke for him. You published HIS response.
I'm sure you can understand that I don't share your fundamentalist values as to what is permissible in how Christians treat one another or others. Please understand I mean you no disrespect. You are entitled to treat others the way you want to.
Ok, that was really, REALLY funny. Lydia, a fundementalist?? You're trying out for that Last Comic Standing aren't you? Don't front like you're not. But the piece de resistance was the "mean you no disrespect" and "You are entitled...to". I almost busted a gut with that one.
You are such a cut up. Thanks for the laugh. Lydia, the fundy. Bwahahahaha Wade should charge admissions to these comment threads. I'd have paid good money to read that one.
Hi Lydia,
You don't know what you said that caused Chris to reply to you?
?
Love, L's
Hi JOE,
I'm so pleased to have provided you with some fun. Life is tough and we all need a bit of a laugh now and then. Love you dearly, L's
P.S. I take it you don't think Lydia buys into the fundamentalist way of communicating with others?
I think she does. I really do.
Nah. I would say that she is definitely not a fundy in any way.
8 days til game day, fellow elephant lover. Alabama vs. V Tech in Hot-lanta. Roll Tide!!!!!
I still absolutely adore elephants.
Hope your team wins, Joe.
Maybe I have misunderstood Lydia. I wouldn't be the first one to do that. I hope she would forgive it if I did. Love, L's
Post a Comment