McCain Is the Only Hope of the GOP & America

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by scotty

You can't vote , right?

I love you Sister Felicity...but lets take another look at Romney shall we?

Thank you .... but I'd have to read all those articles for myself and check for bias and agenda and consider the author's own political stance. Context has to be taken into consideration as well.

Besides, I doubt McCain is a whole lot different. If you take the U.S. Constitution and democracy seriously then you have to extend equal right for all citizens regardless of their morals otherwise you get in trouble with the whole "discrimination" thing.

It's a mess.

And no, I can't vote.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

So in closing...you're already paying a "hidden tax" that cares for the uninsured. Also you're paying more in premiums and over all costs and co-pays than you would in taxes if we moved to a national health insurance program. And as the cost of health care in the US continues to rise this becomes even more relevant. That's why it's becoming more and more of an issue.

We cannot afford the underfunded and un-funded mandates for the social programs we have now, and your solution is to SPEND MORE MONEY? You do know where they get the money for this stuff, right? They take it from people who work at jobs and feed their families, and when that's not enough, they print it off of presses just like it was Monopoly money.

If you were to use the same tactics to fund your health insurance on a local, microeconomic level, you'd go to jail. Specifically, walking over to your neighbor's house with a gun and confiscating a sum of money for your insurance premium and "administrative overhead." But having a law passed so that a police officer and an IRS agent do your dirty work for you, now somehow that's ethical????

Your faith in the efficiency and benevolence of government bureaucracy is both quaint and horrifying at the same time.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

We cannot afford the underfunded and un-funded mandates for the social programs we have now, and your solution is to SPEND MORE MONEY? You do know where they get the money for this stuff, right? They take it from people who work at jobs and feed their families, and when that's not enough, they print it off of presses just like it was Monopoly money.

If you were to use the same tactics to fund your health insurance on a local, microeconomic level, you'd go to jail. Specifically, walking over to your neighbor's house with a gun and confiscating a sum of money for your insurance premium and "administrative overhead." But having a law passed so that a police officer and an IRS agent do your dirty work for you, now somehow that's ethical????

Your faith in the efficiency and benevolence of government bureaucracy is both quaint and horrifying at the same time.

Fantastic post.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

I'm a "facist"? Your ignorance is showing. It's the big government liberals who are closer to their facist's forefathers.

You stated that you believed that doctors who perform abortions and women who procure them should be penalized for murder as the Bible would require. That means execution.

Would you support the execution of homosexuals and others too? Your statement implies that you would.

And for the record...I called Dominionists dedicated to imposing right wing religious law on our country facists...not you personally.

BTW, I believe the world will be won from the bottom up and not by legislation. I don't believe that American is or was a Christian nation. But I do believe that Scripture demands that we ascribe to God what is rightfully His and to do less is sin. We're to think His thoughts after Him and bring ALL thoughts captive.

We are strangers and pilgrims down here. We're not called to take over and rule by religious law.

The truth be known all political theory has religious underpinnings. Even secularism. The key is to have a theory(religion) that is not arbitrary, inconsistent, and can provide the preconditions for understanding what is reality, what is right, and how do I know what I know. On your worldview you can't answer these questions with being arbitrary and inconsistent.

I agree somewhat. Political philosophies will always serve as vehicles to express values deeply rooted in religious convictions.

Scripture shows that all areas of society have their place and boundries and they are not to overlap. Civil government in the USA has overlapped the family, church, and the individual. It is our messiah and savior.

Scripture is rather interesting on the issue. I've spoken to a Rabbi about Israel, which is socialist by the way, and how their rabbis pushed for national health care based on Torah principles. The Law of Moses requires that if anyone be in need the nation isn't to withdraw their hand from them. The entire nation is called upon to assist those in need. There are even laws requiring land owners to allow the poor, fatherless, widows, and the needy to glean their crops. These laws are essentially foundational early distributist thought as found in Scripture. The principle at work was that all shared a burden for eachother in the society. In ancient Israel a land owner who refused to allow the poor to glean from their crop was to be called into the gates before the magiestrate. However, as we see in the book of Amos and others land owners often made deals with magistrates and denied what God calls, "the right of the poor". God even prounounced strong judgment against the nation for doing this.

Many who believe in more progressive politics pull from the OT sense of social justice and equity in their political worldview. The principles underlining things such and gleaning and the poor tithe teach us that the basic necessities of survival were to be shared by the nation...not horded by the wealthy.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

What is scriptures position? It in no way promotes social compassion by the state at the expense of stealing from others. Private social compassion is the Biblical manor. In fact Paul commends some of the churches for giving offerings to him to give to those hurting in Jerusalem.

Did Biblical Civil Law require land owners to allow those in need to glean and pick from the edges of crops? Was this not called the "right of the poor" in ancient Israel? Israel was a theocratic state...the Temple was part of the government and the prophets even served in the royal courts. The poor tithe was essentially a third year's tithe (tax) that was distributed to the poor. Government was seen as an institution ordained of God to protect and distribute justice, both judicial and social. Dave, here's an exerpt from a dictionary article illustrating my point:

Justice as defined in the Bible
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3548

Justice in the Bible very frequently also deals with benefits. Cultures differ widely in determining the basis by which the benefits are to be justly distributed. For some it is by birth and nobility. For others the basis is might or ability or merit. Or it might simply be whatever is the law or whatever has been established by contracts. The Bible takes another possibility. Benefits are distributed according to need. Justice then is very close to love and grace. God “executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and… loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18, NRSV; compare Hosea 10:12; Isaiah 30:18).

Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens (also called “sojourners” or “strangers”), wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17). Injustice is either a sin of commission or of omission.

The content of justice, the benefits which are to be distributed as basic rights in the community, can be identified by observing what is at stake in the passages in which “justice,” “righteousness,” and “judgment” occur. The needs which are met include land (Ezekiel 45:6-9; compare Micah 2:2; Micah 4:4) and the means to produce from the land, such as draft animals and millstones (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Deuteronomy 24:6). These productive concerns are basic to securing other essential needs and thus avoiding dependency; thus the millstone is called the “life” of the person (Deuteronomy 24:6). Other needs are those essential for mere physical existence and well being: food (Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 146:7), clothing (Deuteronomy 24:13), and shelter (Psalms 68:6; Job 8:6). Job 22:5-9,Job 22:23; Job 24:1-12 decries the injustice of depriving people of each one of these needs, which are material and economic. The equal protection of each person in civil and judicial procedures is represented in the demand for due process (Deuteronomy 16:18-20). Freedom from bondage is comparable to not being “in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:48 NRSV).

Justice presupposes God's intention for people to be in community. When people had become poor and weak with respect to the rest of the community, they were to be strengthened so that they could continue to be effective members of the community—living with them and beside them (Leviticus 25:35-36). Thus biblical justice restores people to community. By justice those who lacked the power and resources to participate in significant aspects of the community were to be strengthened so that they could. This concern in Leviticus 25:1 is illustrated by the provision of the year of Jubilee, in which at the end of the fifty year period land is restored to those who had lost it through sale or foreclosure of debts (Leviticus 25:28). Thus they regained economic power and were brought back into the economic community. Similarly, interest on loans was prohibited (Leviticus 25:36) as a process which pulled people down, endangering their position in the community.

These legal provisions express a further characteristic of justice. Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9). Such thorough justice can be socially disruptive. In the Jubilee year as some receive back lands, others lose recently-acquired additional land. The advantage to some is a disadvantage to others. In some cases the two aspects of justice come together. In the act of restoration, those who were victims of justice receive benefits while their exploiters are punished (1 Samuel 2:7-10; compare Luke 1:51-53; Luke 6:20-26).

The source of justice As the sovereign Creator of the universe, God is just (Psalms 99:1-4; Genesis 18:25; Deuteronomy 32:4; Jeremiah 9:24), particularly as the defender of all the oppressed of the earth (Psalms 76:9; Psalms 103:6; Jeremiah 49:11). Justice thus is universal (Psalms 9:7-9) and applies to each covenant or dispensation. Jesus affirmed for His day the centrality of the Old Testament demand for justice (Matthew 23:23). Justice is the work of the New Testament people of God (James 1:27).

God's justice is not a distant external standard. It is the source of all human justice (Proverbs 29:26; 2 Chronicles 19:6,2 Chronicles 19:9). Justice is grace received and grace shared (2 Corinthians 9:8-10).

The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).

You can't pick and choose what Biblical principles to uphold and which not to.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

An average of 18,000 people die every year in America because they cannot afford life saving medical treatments. Do you think God approves of that?

If He didn't , it wouldn't happen. Kinda like the saying " If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise"

doesn't really matter what the creek does now does it?

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

You stated that you believed that doctors who perform abortions and women who procure them should be penalized for murder as the Bible would require. That means execution.

Would you support the execution of homosexuals and others too? Your statement implies that you would.

And for the record...I called Dominionists dedicated to imposing right wing religious law on our country facists...not you personally.



We are strangers and pilgrims down here. We're not called to take over and rule by religious law.



I agree somewhat. Political philosophies will always serve as vehicles to express values deeply rooted in religious convictions.



Scripture is rather interesting on the issue. I've spoken to a Rabbi about Israel, which is socialist by the way, and how their rabbis pushed for national health care based on Torah principles. The Law of Moses requires that if anyone be in need the nation isn't to withdraw their hand from them. The entire nation is called upon to assist those in need. There are even laws requiring land owners to allow the poor, fatherless, widows, and the needy to glean their crops. These laws are essentially foundational early distributist thought as found in Scripture. The principle at work was that all shared a burden for eachother in the society. In ancient Israel a land owner who refused to allow the poor to glean from their crop was to be called into the gates before the magiestrate. However, as we see in the book of Amos and others land owners often made deals with magistrates and denied what God calls, "the right of the poor". God even prounounced strong judgment against the nation for doing this.

Many who believe in more progressive politics pull from the OT sense of social justice and equity in their political worldview. The principles underlining things such and gleaning and the poor tithe teach us that the basic necessities of survival were to be shared by the nation...not horded by the wealthy.

I would ascribe to the death penalty as dictated by scripture. What is your problem with it?

You said "We are strangers and pilgrims down here. We're not called to take over and rule by religious law." So you want to better society by your wisdom and reject Scripture's teaching on the matter? Don't forget the dominion mandate and also the command to make disciples. BTW, You ignored what I said. I said that we're to change our society from the bottom up. It comes by regeneration.

The Bible didn't give government the arbitrary right to forcibly take as much as they want from the wealthy and give it to the poor. Limits were set. And as to your rabbi friend, he disregards the New Testament I presume. Christ had much to say that help explain the Old Testament law and it's application.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Did Biblical Civil Law require land owners to allow those in need to glean and pick from the edges of crops? Was this not called the "right of the poor" in ancient Israel? Israel was a theocratic state...the Temple was part of the government and the prophets even served in the royal courts. The poor tithe was essentially a third year's tithe (tax) that was distributed to the poor. Government was seen as an institution ordained of God to protect and distribute justice, both judicial and social. Dave, here's an exerpt from a dictionary article illustrating my point:

Justice as defined in the Bible
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3548



You can't pick and choose what Biblical principles to uphold and which not to.

This is a hermanutical principle. Some aspects of the law were fulled by Christ, i:e- the ceremonial law, and some were changed. Under the Old Testament law there were strict limits put on the different areas of society and the civil government could not arbitrarily choose how much, who, and what to tax.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

We cannot afford the underfunded and un-funded mandates for the social programs we have now, and your solution is to SPEND MORE MONEY? You do know where they get the money for this stuff, right? They take it from people who work at jobs and feed their families, and when that's not enough, they print it off of presses just like it was Monopoly money.

Wrong. Funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be transfered into a national health insurance program funding the program nearly 60%. Taxes needed to pay for the rest of the program would be less than your insurance primium. For example, right now in the private market my insurance primum is $365 a month. The only increase in my taxes to sustain the system would be $110 a month. Please note...with a national health insurance system my primiums as paid now would go away. I would actually walk away with $255 extra dollars in my pocket every month! I'd keep more of my money in a national health insurance program.

[quote]If you were to use the same tactics to fund your health insurance on a local, microeconomic level, you'd go to jail. Specifically, walking over to your neighbor's house with a gun and confiscating a sum of money for your insurance premium and "administrative overhead." But having a law passed so that a police officer and an IRS agent do your dirty work for you, now somehow that's ethical????

Baloney. How is it ethical to use tax dollars for anything then? Someone will always wish not to have their tax dollars spent on something. I guess everyone's being robbed. Maybe we should shut down the government and become an anarchy. Get realistic here bro. We're talking about Health Insurance. It's not like a car or computer. It's health. Do sick people have a basic human right to health care that can save their lives. Last year an estimated 18,000 Americans died because they couldn't afford health insurance. What was their only crime? Being poor.

Your faith in the efficiency and benevolence of government bureaucracy is both quaint and horrifying at the same time.

Would you like to visit a Canadian forum and talk with some Canadians about this with me?

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

I would ascribe to the death penalty as dictated by scripture. What is your problem with it?

You said "We are strangers and pilgrims down here. We're not called to take over and rule by religious law." So you want to better society by your wisdom and reject Scripture's teaching on the matter? Don't forget the dominion mandate and also the command to make disciples. BTW, You ignored what I said. I said that we're to change our society from the bottom up. It comes by regeneration.

The Bible didn't give government the arbitrary right to forcibly take as much as they want from the wealthy and give it to the poor. Limits were set. And as to your rabbi friend, he disregards the New Testament I presume. Christ had much to say that help explain the Old Testament law and it's application.

There you have it folks. Dave reveals that he would execute sinners in the United States. Dave....I know you can't see it bro. But hate filled people like you who would execute sinners is a growing problem in this country. You're distablizing our nation like the Taliban distablized Afghanistan. Hey Dave...I assume you're so holy you feel you'd have the right to pull the trigger on a homosexual?