You should have prefaced that with "Warning: Put your glass or cup down, swallow first - then read the following"
Monitor screens and flat screens and liquid sprays should not co-exist in the same plane.
As for attending "church", red faces and screeching - there seems to be a correlation in some subsets of the over arching religion. When the red faces and screeching begin "What would Jesus do?" never seems to come to mind. OK - so he did lose it once and chased a bunch of money changers out of The Temple, but that's when he was younger, and his emotions over rode his love for his people and his compassion.
I was under the impression that the New Testament was about a kind and loving god, rather than the angry and seemingly vindictive god being replaced. But what do I know - after only thirteen years of Catholic School?
Funny, in almost 50 years of attending church, I've never encountered anyone who has had that approach to faith. Have seen quite a few atheists act that way though, at the mere mention of the word, "God".
Actually, the incident in question was righteous anger over those who had replaced the love of people and compassion with the love of money and personal gain.
Martin Luther had the same problem. It took a lot of years and study before he found out that the catholic God was not the God of the Bible.
'Real' atheists respond to the word god in much the same way as they do to the words 'santa' and 'tooth ferry'. -The three by the way, are all the same guy.
I know a few regular 'church goers' who I talk politics with on occasion (suprised?). Do you know what they say (every time w/o fail) when I talk to them about Universal Health Care?
"Oh, no... I don't want my taxes to go up." In other words, screw the poor and sick... See ya at church!
Umm, yes, most likely. Things such as stealing or coveting your neighbor's property would pretty much apply here. Why do you want your neighbors or other people to pay for *your* health care? After health care, what next? Don't all people deserve shelter? So, we should nationalize housing also and make people pay for other peoples' shelter. Just because you are using the government to steal from someone doesn't make it right.
The catholic church that Martin Luther grew up in centered around a righteous judge who would call all people to account and that taught a works righteousness requiring the Christian to atone for all of their sins through good works; relatives were also instructed to help those who had died without doing enough good works to get out of purgatory by doing additional good works or by making donations to the Church. Luther was very sensitive to this righteous judge, who would see Luther's sins and condemn him to hell for those sins that he had not confessed or atoned for. Luther had a very strong fear of that God, fearing he could never do enough to appease that righteous judge, he went so far as to become a monk, giving up his promising future as a lawyer. As a monk he performed all of the righteous acts that were to atone for his sins, but never felt he could do enough. When one of his mentors had him study to teach the book of Romans, he found the words in scripture that said, "The just shall live by faith". He indicated later that at that moment, all of heaven opened to him. Additional study led to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic church had replaced the scriptures as the norm of the Christian's life with tradition and good works. His (and others) who studied the scriptures re-discovered the fact that salvation is through faith in Christ, and that atonement for sins before God is only through Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Thus was born the Reformation.
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.
16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are.
17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?
19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius,
20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
OR
Matthew 7
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Not exactly riled up, but a little confused. The description of your mother-in-law sure sounded like my mother. But, she had no daughters hence my confusion.
As a matter of fact we do -- only we do it within the context of which it it written, not ripping bits and pieces out of context to fit an agenda.
Nothing said here about having the government take money in taxes from one who works and give it to someone who doesn't, or to redistribute wealth. Not even close to the context of the event.
There's also a passage, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat". That's in context and the meaning is quite clear in that context -- one should not expect others to take care of you when you won't do it yourself.
There are numerous passages regarding charity -- "I was sick and you visited me, " and others. The difference here is charity -- gifts given freely vs. using the government as an agent to take from people you think are better off than you and re-distribute that wealth for your benefit.
*That* falls under the context of coveting and stealing. Coveting for wanting what is not yours and stealing for actually voting for and supporting the people who take what is not theirs in order to give it to you simply because *you* think those other people make more than you and therefore don't deserve what they have. At that point, you are displaying envy of what others have and plotting how to take it away from them. At the same time, you are depriving them of the opportunity to freely give what they have, at their discretion, and forcing them to give up what they have earned.
Quite a stretch here to use a passage that deals with how even the sinful world recognizes how to do good, so how much more so will the heavenly Father, who is perfect take care of our needs, as a proof passage for universal health care and government forced wealth redistribution.
Don't bother, you don't have a clue about hermeneutics or the use of scripture to interpret scripture. You aren't going to come close to getting it right if you are trying to use this to prove a biblical foundation for forced re-distribution of wealth.
Mark & Juanita wrote in news:h9OdnQc_OaqyONXVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:
Encase it in lead? Worked for Superman, until the State of California banned it because you could get cancer or lead poisioning from injesting it (not simply touching it) in just the right way. :-)
No. Very much in context. YOU, like most churchies I know, do not like to apply scripture when it is inconvenient.
It makes the point that 'you' shouldn't be concerned with paying taxes as long as you give to god what is his. (But I am sure you will interpret it to mean something else)
That passage (from Thessalonians) refers to those that are lazy (idleness). Convenient for you to assume that those that can not afford health care are just lazy.
You are twisting it to fit your 'agenda'. You assume that those that can not afford health care are not willing to pay for it. VERY convenient for you.
What was jc's position on helping the poor and the sick?
WOW! Talk about twisting scripture to fit an agenda. They want to 'steal' from you so that your underprivileged neighbors can have access to health care. Hey I know. You can pray for the sick and poor. This way you can do NOTHING and feel like you are doing SOMETHING for them.
Yeah I know. I shouldn't address scripture that makes things inconvenient for you.
No. I am making the point that the religious right that are against UHC are hypocrites. This is a blatant example of not practicing what you preach.
I am done with this thread. I will give you the last word.
There is a world of difference between gifts freely given and force redistribution.
It's not charity or benevolence when you are using other peoples' money. Nice jump there, somehow you believe that because people don't want the government to take from them to give to others, those same people don't engage in voluntary charitable acts.
No, you shouldn't try to re-interpret scripture to fit your agenda and rip it kicking and screaming from its intended context.
That is absolute BS and you know it. I will repeat -- It's not charity when you are using other peoples' money.
Where does it stop? 40 years ago, it was welfare and food stamps. Today it is health care and the seeds being planted regarding the plight of the homeless. So, tomorrow universal housing? Then, what next?
I think you really believe in the statement, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Didn't work for the countries that adopted that in the past, won't work any better here.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.