Ed Schultz: You know who’d support the public option? Jesus
posted at 7:14 pm on September 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
A reading from the gospel according to Barack, and not for the first time either. I get a kick out of it, partly because it’s healthy to see how shameless religious politicking looks when it comes from the other side and partly because I think the Christian ethos points more towards his side of the argument on this one. Yes, granted, there’s nothing in the Bible about caring for the sick by rendering unto Caesar, but if it’s a choice between that and letting millions of people go without treatment, what’s the more Christian-y option? Schultz’s point about democracy is interesting, too. It’s one thing to have Herod sending down diktats about taxes for his personal policy whims, but if a majority of the public supports taxes as a way of covering the uninsured, isn’t that a form of private charity albeit through a public mechanism? And if the answer to that is, “No, because those in favor should just start their own private institution devoted to covering the uninsured and donate to it voluntarily,” then what, if any, divine repercussions should there be for people who don’t donate to it? Is Jesus A-OK with you letting people suffer without care even if you have spare income you could offer them? Inquiring atheists want to know!
FYI, the line about Jesus supporting the public option isn’t in this clip. Watch Newsbusters’s edit from earlier in the show for that.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Old comments, please?
Mommypundit on September 3, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Who’s going without treatment? I was unaware they were allowed to deny you treatment if you’re sick. Huh.
I must’ve imagined that sign in my local hospital’s waiting room informing people in multiple languages that they’re entitled to whatever is necessary to stabilize your issue, including transfer to other hospitals.
amerpundit on September 3, 2009 at 7:18 PM
This “we are the government” thing is a new meme.
kc8ukw on September 3, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Funny, I always thought Christ was about the INDIVIDUAL tending the “sheep” VOLUNTARILY because God has provided for us…
…not so much involuntary CONFISCATION of wealth by a secular government
The Book of Marx perhaps?
battleoflepanto1571 on September 3, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Jesus IS the public option. He doesn’t need Ed Shultz’s endorsement either.
Fletch54 on September 3, 2009 at 7:19 PM
I’m pretty sure Christ wouldn’t support a public option, or reject one. The point of “render unto Caesar” was that his message had nothing to do with politics.
pifactorial on September 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Don’t know. Is He A-OK with you not donating money to the church, to spread His word, even if you can? Clearly we need a government program to provide a constant supply of money to the church.
amerpundit on September 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Jesus likes that part about killing the unborn the best.
regal on September 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Funny I never have seen the official Government Catechism.
fourdeucer on September 3, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Hey, I personally know Jesus Gonzales (well, one of them, at least) and he WOULD NOT support the public option!
Fuzzlenutter on September 3, 2009 at 7:21 PM
winner winner
“It’s the COVERAGE stupid”
battleoflepanto1571 on September 3, 2009 at 7:21 PM
And can this fat man sound any more stupid??
Fuzzlenutter on September 3, 2009 at 7:21 PM
surely not the illegal immigrant my wife cared for while he was on dialysis for months. And not the homeless people she has cared for after heart bypass surgery.
we HAVE universal health care. Jesus can relax.
Ampersand on September 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM
It’s almost as though they are trying to find the worst possible arguments.
exception on September 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM
thread winner.
End of discussion
battleoflepanto1571 on September 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM
does anyone here give a crap what ed schultz or precedent oboobi think of there moral obligation?
SHARPTOOTH on September 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Exactly. The issue isn’t treatment. People receive treatment. They might not be chowing down on lobster while in the hospital, but they’re not being allowed to bleed in the street or die on the sidewalk. They receive treatment.
amerpundit on September 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Honestly if Hot Air didn’t post clips from The Ed Show, no one would ever know he said it.
Go RBNY on September 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Yes, but not because he wants anyone to suffer needlessly. God wants us to help the needy, but he wants us to do it for love of Him and His people, not because the government makes us do it. He didn’t give us free will just to have the government take it away.
Dee2008 on September 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Irony of a lifelong smoker and coke user determining universal health care?
battleoflepanto1571 on September 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM
I thought Obama Jesus said the public option was not essential? I’m confused…
IntheNet on September 3, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Ampersand on September 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Exactly. The issue isn’t treatment. People receive treatment. They might not be chowing down on lobster while in the hospital, but they’re not being allowed to bleed in the street or die on the sidewalk. They receive treatment.
amerpundit on September 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM
sometimes better treatment then people with good insurance.
SHARPTOOTH on September 3, 2009 at 7:25 PM
The Theolibs will be just as bad as the theocons if we give them enough time in power.
The Dean on September 3, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Schultz better start praying to someone. His numbers are about a sixth of Beck’s.
TexasJew on September 3, 2009 at 7:26 PM
“I was sick and you didn’t form a bloated bureaucracy funded by coercive taxation and put Me on a waiting list for healthcare.”
SheofTwoMinds on September 3, 2009 at 7:26 PM
I wonder how Jesus feels about the IRS running the public option…?
Seven Percent Solution on September 3, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Ah, yes! A person who doesn’t follow Christ presumes to speak for Him, when smart Christians avoid such presumption without Bible quotes to back them.
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 7:28 PM
It’s our responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves.
Those who can help themselves and choose not to are making a lifestyle choice. It’s not up to us to interfere.
Those who can help themselves, choose not to, and expect others to provide for them are parasites. Providing for parasites just causes them to remain parasites. Also, it encourages others to become parasites. Finally, it gives parasites a feeling of entitlement.
Do you really think providing for parasites is Christian?
jaime on September 3, 2009 at 7:29 PM
The other day, a young liberal woman that I work with said to me “I was shocked to hear that you don’t support health care!” What is it about people that they think that opposition to a government takeover means that you don’t support treating the sick? Et tu, Allah?
Priscilla on September 3, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Does Schultz believe Jesus was the Son of God? That he rose from the dead? That he’ll be coming back to set up his kingdom one day? If the answer is no to all three, then he has no business telling us what the Lord and Savior would think about anything.
Orange Doorhinge on September 3, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Indeed. I don’t remember the requirement that I be forced to care for those who have the means, perhaps even more than I do, to care for themselves but choose not to.
amerpundit on September 3, 2009 at 7:31 PM
I heard that Jesus was in favor of the Federal Reserve and 4-cent “Dollars”. That was somewhere on Jim Wallis’ insane website…
The Dean on September 3, 2009 at 7:31 PM
After having driven religion from the public square liberals are now making appeals to theological doctrine to support public policy?
Geez, it sure seems opportunistic to me but I’m a rightwing troglodyte.
SteveMG on September 3, 2009 at 7:32 PM
AP what the fark is wrong with you? The “more Christian-y” thing to do is stop relying an a lumpen federal bureaucracy staffed with clock watchers angling to get every Friday off and either spending with no control or denying coverage with no remorse
The “more Christian-y” thing to do is return to a more reasonable scale of affairs where neighbors and family members cared for their own … where massive government didn’t trample charity … where wrong-headed readings of the separation of church and state didn’t erect legal nightmares and Kabuki howls of outrage from the secular humanist clap trap.
The “more Christian-y” thing to do is return to a sense of community. It was never perfect, of course. But it’s a far sight more practical than the greatest waste of human wealth in world history that we have endured.
Stop enabling the hypocrites, Champ
August Horch on September 3, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Beggar coming up to Jesus….
‘Jesus, I am deeply ill… what should I do?’
Jesus smiles upon the beggar.
‘Go to the Roman Empire, they will take care of you…’
Yes indeedy, that is EXACTLY what Jesus would want, all right. No?
ajacksonian on September 3, 2009 at 7:32 PM
And yet, that is PRECISELY what Jesus did when He took human form, viz. He allowed millions of people to go without treatment. He ONLY healed those who had some measure of faith in God — those with enough faith to seek Him out in most cases.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on September 3, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Ah, those libs. Whatever it takes. They can be Christians and cannibals when necessary.
An attorney made an interesting comment regarding BO’s scheduled intrusion into the classroom next week. He said, “It’s worth noting that God is not allowed in the classrooms, but this president is.”
They will resort to anything, and we must respond accordingly.
Cody1991 on September 3, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Wasn’t this from last night?
Apologetic California on September 3, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Jesus was pretty clear that we are to provide for widows and orphans. For the rest:
“If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thes 3:10
pedestrian on September 3, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Well that little gem out to cause all the Christian hating “progressives” to kill this monstrosity for us.
McBride on September 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Then I guess you want to pay for “healthcare” for the entire world, AP? I mean that’s the logical extention of this silly argument.
Besides MDs and hospitals do a thriving charity care business already. When you strat working for free and hollywood starts working for free and the blessed Kennedys give all they have to the poor to “come follow me”, or eveb the jackass Ed Schultz…when you all take a vow of poverty let me know, ok? Only then will my workday be your “right”!
clnurnberg on September 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Allah,
Your willful ignorance reminds me of my Western Civ prof. During a particular discussion about the early Christians of Rome he went out of his way to make sure everyone knew that he didn’t know the Ten Commandments.
Cody Baker on September 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Book of Welfare, 3:8, right? (New Liberal Democrat Version, copyright Barack Obama, 2001/forever)
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Mac,that ought to be ought,dummy.
McBride on September 3, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Hogwash! Nobody has ever gone without treatment and we don’t need Obamas socialist healthcare manifesto to continue that. This is nothing more than the payoff for Obama’s parasitic constituents that are constantly scrounging for more “free stuff” for the nanny state. Get your facts straight before you make such false statements.
rplat on September 3, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Allah is pretty testy after defriending Meggie?
clnurnberg on September 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM
….jeez.
No, Jesus would not support socialist fascism.
If anything, Jesus would support fighting like a Spartan to defend freedom, possibly sacrificing your life for it in the process.
If anything is holy, it’s FREEDOM.
Zero the anti-hero is the true evil we face, if you can call it evil. I just call it fascism in the face of an obama.
Spiritk9 on September 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM
I disagree. I believe Jesus would encourage us to make the moral choice to voluntarily care for the poor and sick, but if you give the government the power to force you to care for the poor and sick, you are denied the opportunity to make that moral choice. Instead, the government makes the choice for you. Where’s the salvation in that?
mbs on September 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Rendering unto Caeser what is Caesers has nothing to do with being charitable.
It’s about the insignificance of temporary earthly kingdoms/governments.
iceman1960 on September 3, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Liam is that in the new gender neutral bible that’s coming out?
McBride on September 3, 2009 at 7:40 PM
In John 8, Jesus told a woman to “go, and sin no more.”
Does this mean that Jesus would support government interference of peoples’ political rights to sin?
malclave on September 3, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Cool! Jesus says “get a job, you bum!” LOVE IT!
clnurnberg on September 3, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Each of us gives according to our conscience and our own capability. Jesus is not perfectly OK with you letting people suffer without care, but he is not OK with you stealing money from other people to pay for that care.
As I pointed out in a previous comment, Jesus pointed out the personal requirement for charity when he had the Good Samaritan bring the beat-up and robbed Jew to the inn. The Samaritan neither required the innkeeper to use his own funds to care for the hurt man, nor did he ask for money from others at the inn to care for him, but instead personally paid a sum up front and furthermore promised to give the innkeeper any overrun to the care upon his “round trip” return.
A tax of the type envisioned by the liberals takes from people who may appear to be wealthy but actually are not, and who may have other equally valid (or even more valid) choices to use the money which the liberals would tax out of their hands. The point is that the moment the money is taxed out of your hands, you no longer have choice, and since everyone on the Liberal side seems to care about choice, well, there you are.
As we consider what is being asked of us, their own hypocritical habits bear scrutiny: Teddy’s tax load was under 0.5% of his income and Barack’s is about 3%.
My own tax load is about 25% of my income and much more taken out from me will result in vastly decreased healthcare choices on my part, as well as an inability to pay for my childrens’ college educations.
I’d be perfectly happy donating more, but Saint Teddy and President Barack have to belly up to the bar and give up their loopholes so that the tax rate can be lowered for me. If they truly care to act as much as they care to talk, we’ll certainly have an excellent healthcare system.
unclesmrgol on September 3, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Actually, I’d like to know what atheists would do.
Do tell, AP.
Cody1991 on September 3, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Yes, he/she/it/trans is.
Actually, that vile thing has been out a few years.
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I doubt the “inquiring athieists” really want to know, I bet that’s just a snarky little question more than anything else.
Believers know that God is sovereign. God could abolish all injury and all sickness, He doesn’t need US to do it, WE, on the other hand need the opportunity to do it.
You see Christian charity isn’t about the recepient, its about the GIVER. And if the GIVER is forced to give, what does it availist he??
Ignorance leads to such quaint little snarky questions, doesn’t it?
Fatal on September 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Like I said in the Headline thread, this is nothing more than a politician assuming the “bible-thumpers” are stupid.
AP, since you are an admitted athiest, why do you even care what the more “Christian-y” option is? I think people are too hard on you most of the time, but seriously, maybe you could roll back the condescending disdain a little?
BakerAllie on September 3, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Medical science has progressed far faster than our ability to pay for it. Just because high technology exists, doesn’t mean anyone is entitled to it. You get what you pay for. For five thousand years medical treatment was a bandage, some ointment, or some herbs. It worked for hundreds of generations who built the world as we know it. If it worked for them, why does it not work for us? Why, pray tell, is that not good enough anymore? Humans have not changed, so our needs have not changed. All that has changed is our entitlement mentality.
keep the change on September 3, 2009 at 7:43 PM
This reveals (sorry, AP) a chronic misunderstanding about Christianity (“the…Christian-y option”).
Jesus Christ (nor His Father, God Almighty) NEVER advised ANYone to go steal from someone and “redistribute it” to “the sick” or anyone else.
AND Christ REASONABLY AND SENSIBLY REMINDED LISTENERS that “the poor you will always have with you…” (asking them to first, tend to faith and belief in Christ and God the Father as Christ asked of them).”
IT IS CHARITY THAT GOD DESIRES OF US, not our “money” or material goods, BUT HOW WE USE WHAT WE HAVE IN LOVE FOR HIM AS ILLUSTRATED BY OUR ‘LOVE’ OR CARING FOR THE NEEDY.
This “law” or request by God of man, to engage in charity (which is what God says is love and vice-versa, it’s not desire, it’s not lust, it’s not possession or selfishness nor self-centered, it’s GIVING of ONE’s SELF however that giving is done, materially or otherwise) is among the most misunderstood and abused I’ve witnessed.
Christ doesn’t say that it’s wrong to own property, but what IS of question is how we engage to gain that property and how we engaged WITH it as property after we have it. If we are WILLING AND ABLE to lay it all down, walk away for it, in option of following Christ and God’s Commandments, then that’s what Christ calls real faith and love, that’s charity. As is not refusing to aid and assist, to share what we have, with those in need or even those who ask of us.
God doesn’t ask us to be poor ourselves, He says we are rich in faith and will always be provided for but what He does say is not to covet, not to possess, don’t lust or value materials more than one loves God.
It’s a balance but, there’s no command by Christ, in Christianity, to form governments that take away from some under ruse or promise, even, if redistributing that.
The poor will always exist. Poverty is a state of mind, a state of being, it’s not going to go away by giving anyone food stamps or housing or a Czar job in the White House. To be impoverished is a spiritual condition BECAUSE God does provide for his faithful. You may not have a shiny new Cadillac at taxpayer expense like Charlie Rangel, but you will have transportation when you need it…that’s the difference between those who are impoverished in spirit and yet demand “more” and those who in faith rest in God’s love for them, His intent to provide for them.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Liam I learn something new every day here.Thanks
McBride on September 3, 2009 at 7:43 PM
“There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as ‘caring’ and ‘sensitive’ because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money — if a gun is held to his head.” — P.J. O’Rourke
calbear on September 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Well said.
mbs on September 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Isn’t the public option what makes it reform? Without it we would just have what we have now. That’s not a compromise. I would hope no democrat would agree to that.
Speaking of conservative pundits like Morris, Malkin etc, why dont they have any respect for their audience or their intelligence. They just say the dumbest things knowing some braindead troll is going to buy it up, all in the name of selling their new book.
Have you ever noticed that they all have books that their promoting on the shows. Suddenly you have these strong opinions that you must inform the American people about. And if they want the facts behind the accusations, then that will only be $19.95 plus tax. It just sounds a little fishy to me.
Afrolib on September 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Geez folks, AP is just sparking a discussion.
Don’t take it personally; that’s his job.
SteveMG on September 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM
It’s called capitalism Afro,you might try it sometime.Why again,don’t the mighty democrats pass the stinking thing themselves?
McBride on September 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Please tell us, AP, what atheists do to help society at large. Are there atheist charities and hospitals? How much do atheists contribute to charities?
I’m really curious.
Cody1991 on September 3, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Shultz is assuming a lot if he thinks Obamacare will help the least among us.
iceman1960 on September 3, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Your schtick is getting old, AP. If your content is really so weak that you can only spark comments by spinning every issue into an atheism vs. Christianity issue, you’ve really lost your touch.
fourstringfuror on September 3, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Irony of a lifelong smoker and coke user determining universal health care?
battleoflepanto1571 on September 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM
I hate to admit it but I too am a lifelong (so far, that is) smoker. I have tried and tried and tried to quit (as I light a Marlboro red) but my nerves get frazzled and my anger level goes up 24 notches. Now the coke I gave up 27 years ago…
Fuzzlenutter on September 3, 2009 at 7:49 PM
About Christ’s criticism of “the rich” (“easier for a camel to pass through the Eye of [the] Needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven”), is about SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
“Rich man” being a man who prizes material wealth above spiritual wealth. If you can’t “give it all away” when asked by God in order to comply with what God wants of you, then, you’re not very likely to suddenly find yourself before a Judgemental God at the final moment who will disregard your previous behaviors. Not without confession of sins, and forgiveness, genuine sorrow for your sins and a change away from sin into compliance with God.
That’s my understanding of this…
I don’t see anything in the Bible that declares it wrong or sinful to own property and/or to be wealthy or even “rich” — it’s a case of where one’s heart lies, which the Bible also declares: what you love reveals what state you are in, spiritually, in God’s terms.
IF you love your money so much that it just can’t be given to anyone else, then, you’re not engaged in charity, or, love of God. But God also says that “bad stewardship” is wrong and He is particularly angry about that — that which we are given by God, He expects us to multiply (not squander) such that it can be used, then, for greater service to God.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Or, an even better idea is to either go to a different site, learn to live with this site and it’s writers, and/or develop a more robust defense of your faith rather than whining over perceived injustices on a relatively secular political blog.
Not trying to be mean. Just had it up to the, well, nth over people assuming people aren’t conservative over disagreements and religion. It’s super petty and beneath us. Leave the homogeneity to the liberals.
Mommypundit on September 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM
I was being sarcastic about the Book of Welfare, like Monty Python made a joke about the Book of Armaments.
But that gender-neutral ‘version’ of the Bible has been out there a few years.
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Sometimes I think Ed Schultz is working harder than anyone to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is, without question, the biggest bloviating blowhard in recorded history.
pilamaye on September 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Reference. cough it up. What have they said that is more stupid than let’s say.. what you have to say.
Noelie on September 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM
I think there is a very sound argument that can be associated with “squandering” what God gives us with “expanding government”.
Mainly because we’ve all seen how it is that government is often used by people who are greedy and self-fulfilling (for egotistical purposes, like Pelosi, Kennedy, etc.) and that the “spirit” of the original goods is then “redistributed” to service sinful or wrong purposes.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM
We understand that you are dissatisfied with the condition of your own existence, you do not need to come here and remind us everyday.
kahall on September 3, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Nothing bores me more than the argument:
“(insert favorite idol here) would totally be on my side”
I don’t give a sh*t if Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Che’ or Yoda would agree with you. When they can’t speak up from the grave (or imagination land) to correct you, you have no business telling anyone that they’re on your side. I don’t know what Jesus thinks and you sure don’t either.
Tell me why you support it and I’ll judge for myself if your resoning is persuasive. Name dropping some idol try to gain some imagined moral authority is only going to make me think that you don’t have the goods to back it up with sound reasoning.
Scrappy on September 3, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Not at all. Congressional Republicans are advocating other reforms, such as tort reform and the repeal of the prohibition on selling insurance across state lines, that would bring down the cost of health care and make health insurance more accessible to more people. You’re just not hearing about those plans, because the media are attempting to starve them of oxygen by refusing to mention them.
Mary in LA on September 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM
It pains me to pass this thread up, but my daughter is getting married tomorrow and I really can’t respond the way I’d like. I shouldn’t be online at all. But Allahpundit, as to what’s the more Christian-y option… I would never claim to speak for all Christians but a whole lot of us believe that the point of Christian charity is not to eliminate poverty, which Jesus specifically said we’d have with us always. The point is to glorify God. Something government emphatically does not do, can never do.
I wrote about this at greater length here – if any fellow bible thumpers have differing opinions I’d be very interested in reading them, even though it’ll be a couple of days before I can do so.
And especially Jesus would not support abortions which the Dem plan does. Looking forward to reading the comments here later this weekend… :-)
Laura on September 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM
I’m curious, would you buy their books if the authors (“pundits”) were Black?
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM
I just want to say one thing that often gets lost in the shuffle:
Health care is not health insurance is not health.
Mary in LA on September 3, 2009 at 7:55 PM
I caught the sarc Liam,but I didn’t know the neutral version was out there.I’m still stuck on the ol’K.J.
McBride on September 3, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Just speaking the truth my neocon friend.
Afrolib on September 3, 2009 at 7:55 PM
The Bible specifically says it is the CHURCH’S JOB to care for the widows and the orphans and the poor.
Not the government’s. Sorry AP, but you’re off base there.
:p
One Angry Christian on September 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Sorry, let me try this again with the bold tags sorted out:
Health care is not health insurance is not health.
Mary in LA on September 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Scripture admonishes believers to be good stewards of the Lord’s bounty. But if government forces us to give it more, then we are not accountable for government.
God asks only ten percent, with trust He’ll increase it by His own hand. Government takes much more, keeps more than half for itself, and doles out the rest piecemeal.
You’re on the right track!
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Congrats for being the biggest fool of today.
Afrolib on September 3, 2009 at 7:57 PM
If you’re really interested, you could try reading His word.
Fatal on September 3, 2009 at 7:57 PM
The point of view that Liberals are entirely wrong on is that they assume that something or someone else (“government”) should or can or ought to assume the responsibility for the individual.
While in Christianity, it is all about the individual. God evaluates INDIVIDUALS INDIVIDUALLY: did you love God, love God more than your materials, engage in charity (love for God) as you without expectation exercised love for your neighbor (if it’s a part of your relationship with God, it’s going to be spontaneous in you as you go about among other people), did you confess your sins and repent from them? God’s given us the Ten Commandments and He’s given us Jesus Christ among us to explain the rest. Nothing too complex about it, expecting “government” to somehow “take the test for you” instead of taking the test yourself, isn’t what God’s asking us to do.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM
And FaTal says SaaLAP.
McBride on September 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM
The New Testament says the man who calls anyone else “fool” is condemnable.
You didn’t answer my question, though.
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Thanks for making my point for me. What you call “His word” was written by people doing exactly what I explained. Much of it hundreds of years after the fact.
Scrappy on September 3, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Does this mean Jews, Muslims, Christian Scientists, Non-Believers and others don’t have to pay into the program? I mean, they’re all going to hell anyway, right, if Jesus is running the toll booth?
IndieDogg on September 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM
How’s the view down there in the grass?
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM
I wasn’t implying that he wasn’t conservative, and I like AP’s writing for the most part. Just don’t see why a secular blog has to, by it’s nature, keep baiting and bashing Christianity post after post.
BakerAllie on September 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM
My guess is you’re right where you ought to be.
Our churches, for the large part, have failed, getting too wrapped up in watering down Scripture to ‘accommodate’ gay pastors and same-sex marriages.
Hang in, kill the anger, and trust. God will not be mocked in the end. Our faith will be vindicated when all is said and done. Don’t forget, too, after the Tribulation we have another thousand years to go before the final conclusion.
Liam on September 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM
It was Paul speaking in Jesus’s name.
“We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.”
pedestrian on September 3, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Of course it is un-Christian to deny medical treatment to the poor.
Look…
It is a fact that Christ DID support a form of universal healthcare:
In one of the earliest Holy Synods(ecumenical councils of the Church) there was a provision for universal healthcare..essentially doctors were commanded to treat the ill regardless of their ability to pay.
That being said…Christ,through His One Holy Church(The Orthodox Church), DOES NOT and WILL NOT support a plan that publicly funds and supports abortion.
MaximusConfessor on September 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Yawn . . . You could have just said you weren’t interested in what Jesus thinks.
So basically, you don’t know and you don’t care.
::shrugs::
Fatal on September 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM
CORRECT. And it’s not MEDICAL care, either, any of that.
Though, I suppose if we assume the Democrats’ point of view, we could define buying a bottle of Aspirin at the drug store “being provided with healthcare”.
;)
Lourdes on September 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »