Jesus the political pundit

[Nonc Hilare]

Are you actually arguing, Nonc Hilare, that the tens of millions of sneaky trespassers have been going without free medical care all these years? Try and sell that argument to the hospitals in California and Texas that are being bankrupted by the legal obligation.

Tens of millions? The entire US population of undocumented aliens is eleven million (2008), and not all are Mexican.

I did not say undocumented workers do not receive services. What I said was that only those who could physically get to an ER could get a very limited range of services.

[Nonc Hilare]

I've been lurking about for some time. So let me see if I have this correct...

Thr first three points are correct. The rest are incoherent gibberish.

[Sennacherib]

I am fed up with partisan positions constructed out of lopsided anecdotal information and supported with specious arguments.

So stop making them!

You've said that my assertions are wrong, wrong, wrong. Show factual errors in them or retract your statements.

Since you won't be able to, I assume you'll take the coward's path and simply disappear from this site.

I addressed your assertions about me personally. I already gave you enough facts and that's all you're gonna get.

Once again I ask - are you calling me a liar?

Because you have no facts to support your view of the universal medicare system.

On my return on Tuesday, you still won't have any facts to challenge my assertions.

Have a good long weekend, all, even if it isn't a long weekend where you are.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

Thr first three points are correct. The rest are incoherent gibberish.

My apologies if I failed to meet your rigorous standards for locution.

There is hope for me, I suppose. If "thr first three points are all correct," the standards for internal consistency are a tad bit more relaxed. And civility towards strangers seems even less rigorous.

I have much to learn of your Christianity...

[Nonc Hilare]

Thr first three points are correct. The rest are incoherent gibberish.

My apologies if I failed to meet your rigorous standards for locution.

There is hope for me, I suppose. If "thr first three points are all correct," the standards for internal consistency are a tad bit more relaxed. And civility towards strangers seems even less rigorous.

I have much to learn of your Christianity...

If you disagree with what I wrote take issue with that accurately. Do not invent snarky absurdities, pretend that they are somehow related to what I posted and then pout over my inadequate mollycoddling of your tender sensibilities when I take you to task.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

Well, my sensibilities aren't so tender. And, I hate to break it to you, but I wasn't responding to you in particular, only in part. I was responding, with what I thought was some good-natured humor (not snark), to several general themes of the thread that I thought were overly simplistic. Including, but not limited to a couple of assertions of yours.

But, as regards some of your points, to state the obvious, the context of Mt 25:31-46 isn't universal health care. Issues include hunger, thirst, acceptance of strangers, nakedness, sick visits/care*, and prison visits. One could argue it represents characterizations of how Christians should or should not behave. But it certainly isn't a recipe for salvation--or even a complete or satisfactory definition of Christianity itself--else we could have spared all that gore of the cross that offends so many. (I even sorta think it has to do more with behavior on an individuals level, rather than political efforts/policies within a group/country. But that's just me...)

* Note: You sorta stole a base yourself starting at vs 43. The wording in the KJV and NASB at vs 36 & 39 (which verses actually apply to the "righteous") is "visit." (I'll admit, the NIV, not known for literal rendering, in vs 36 reads "looked after", but even it reverts to "visit" in vs 39). Granted, the unrighteous get the "care" standard in 43-44. But beginning the citation at 43 is a bit, well... perhaps "selective."

As I tried to point out in my later "gibberish," if health care is at least a moral obligation on all good Christians (perhaps a stolen base), then Jesus wasn't a very good Christian--or at least a pure example. (Which he is otherwise held to be in other matters.) He healed (and fed, and provided drink for) some (and delegated same talents to disciples/apostles), sure, but he didn't carry out this "obligation" to all. One could even charge that he de facto "rationed" it.

Further, if causing sickness or failing to heal sickness isn't "Christian", then "Christians" are gonna have to excommunicate God and Jesus from our "Christianity = Health Care Obligation Club." To wit, (in part):
Ex 8:17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt. 18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.
Ex 9:9 And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt. 10 And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast.
Ex 11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
1 Sam. 5:6 But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.
2 Sam 12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
Job 2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. 7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
Jer 46:11 Go up into Gilead, and take balm, O virgin, the daughter of Egypt: in vain shalt thou use many medicines; for thou shalt not be cured.
John 11:1-6 (Health care delayed... on purpose.)
1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3 Therefore his sisters sent to him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. 4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not to death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. 6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.
John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
1 Cor 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

So, my issue, on at least point #1, is your application of Mt 25:31-46 is overly simplstic. If one wishes to apply Scripture to solving health care problems, why not these?
Mk 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Or do we not believe Scripture? Or just selectively? Or is something a bit more complicate and/or subtle going on in Scripture?

Anyway, you'll have to try harder to convince me from the Bible that a Christian must support health care reform or universal health care, especially as currently proposed in the U.S--even in contradistinction to the evident imperfections in the present system.

(As a side note, shame on the liberal (and non-liberal) secularists for not decrying your attempted Christian justification for supporting health-care reform. If they object to Christian motivated influence on gay marriage or abortion, they should similarly object to calls for a Christian obligation to support health care reform.)

Much more briefly, as to points 2 and 3 (which were):
2. To ration or withhold health care for financial reasons is un-Christian.
3. To ration or withhold health care for a bureaucracy's financial reasons is, however, naturally unavoidable and essentially acceptable.

I was trying to point out that no matter what, there WILL be rationing. And it WILL be financially based. So either way, it will be un-Christian. So what is the point of tossing good or bad Christianity onto the playing field?

If a more humorless tone suits you, there you have it.

[Nonc Hilare]

My statement was: " I don't think there is any way one can twist Scripture into denying health care for lack of funds."

Not that Christians had to accept any particular plan, just that our current system of letting the indigent die from easily treatable causes at bus stops and behind trash dumpsters is not what Jesus had in mind.

[ellens]

Yes, and denying people coverage because of "preexisting conditions" effectively dooms anyone over 50 to either totally lying about their "conditions", not getting coverage for chronic illnesses (and thus dying prematurely) or being chained to a bad job that provides continuous healthcare dating back to a time when one did not have that preexisting condition. That is simply amoral.

[Pastaneta]

Insurance and morality are quite different.

I could say for instance that taking a man's money to pay for a lifetime of bad habits of another who is dying of lung cancer because he has smoked all his life is amoral. Or for paying for the care of a 90 year old Alzheimer patient who has no chance of recovery and doesn't even know who and what he was?

This is why we shouldn't link morality to health insurance!

[CognitiveDistoibance]

My statement was: " I don't think there is any way one can twist Scripture into denying health care for lack of funds."
Not that Christians had to accept any particular plan, just that our current system of letting the indigent die from easily treatable causes at bus stops and behind trash dumpsters is not what Jesus had in mind.

One difficult reality is (at least it seems to me), that while Jesus walked this earth and healed many in various places, while he was in place A, lots of people (indigent or not) were dying from easily treatable causes (especially from a modern perspective--even in the non-miracle category--both in terms of medicine and hygiene) at places B-Z. A marginally helpful reconciliation to this "cognitive dissonance" seems to be that Jesus maybe had bigger fish to fry than health care. Otherwise he could've had job security (not to mention more popularity) simply setting up medical care systems and engineering projects to promote hygiene.

As they say, nobody's getting out of here alive... All those folks Jesus healed, still had to undergo some sort of heath crisis (probably a healthy proportion from "easily treatable causes" at least by our standards) and die later. (Poor Lazarus got the honor twice, so it would seem.)

So, unless one considers God & Jesus as "un-Christian," one has to consider the possibility that God & Jesus have a somewhat different set of priorities that those who consider someone dying of easily treatable causes as utterly immoral. (Understand, I take no pleasure in that sentence, but I don't get consulted on the rules of reality.)

The other major issue is consideration of what is the appropriate "Christian" response is. If I wanted to be snarky (perish the thought), I could twist just your statement "I don't think there is any way one can twist Scripture into denying health care for lack of funds." into demanding that you publically post your personal credit card info here, so that anyone needing health care could charge it to your account. And if you lacked the funds to support such a move, that would be no excuse, by your own admission.

That, of course, would be snarky and thus beneath me. (Most days.) But my point is your statement pretty much pre-supposes proposing something more than what you as an individual can do. (You are, of course, not precluded from patrolling bus stops and trash dumpsters so you can play Good Samaritan on an individual basis within the constraints of your personal funds. And if you do so, I applaud you.) But, toward the end of expanding beyond the individual Christian, you could argue that the Church (local or more broadly) is a viable vehicle for group action from a Scriptural basis. And to that end, I would offer no quarrel, snark or gibberish. But, if you proceed an inch beyond the Church and attempt to engage political and governmental power to accomplish your revulsion at American (or other) health care situations, I would argue that that is also, "not what Jesus had in mind," nor can it be twisted to be Scriptural. As such, then, I object to using Jesus to justify (at least most) political/governmental actions, however noble the intentions.

By all means, if you must, organize, persuade and vote for (or against) Obamacare. But I beg Christians that they don't drag Jesus and Christianity into the mix.

To put another way, I don't think there is a variant manuscript that has verse 45b and 45c:
Mt 25:44 Then will they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then will he answer them, saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 45b Then will they answer him, saying, Yea, Lord, but we were members of a political party, which organized and produced health care reform and its associated bureaucracy. And, while true, we didn't actually get our hands dirty and minister to you personally, our bureaucracy did so on our behalf. 45c Then he will answer them, saying, Verily I say to you, why, that is even better, enter into eternal life--just as soon as your paperwork is processed and established quotas permit.

[Nonc Hilare]

But, if you proceed an inch beyond the Church and attempt to engage political and governmental power to accomplish your revulsion at American (or other) health care situations, I would argue that that is also, "not what Jesus had in mind," nor can it be twisted to be Scriptural. As such, then, I object to using Jesus to justify (at least most) political/governmental actions, however noble the intentions.

And you would be absolutely incorrect. Government is God's servant, and the reason we pay taxes is precisely so that the government can engage in Godly activity on our behalf.

“Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. For government is God’s servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. And for this reason you pay taxes, since the |authorities| are God’s public servants, continually attending to these tasks.”

.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

So because we pay taxes, we can drag Jesus' name into the political process?

Context, context, context. The focus in the Romans 13 passage in question is really quite the opposite. Paul was correcting Christians who felt they could rebel and not submit to earthly authorities. (Quite conveniently, invoking Jesus' name to justify their own tax evasion. What purity of motive!)

So it is a masterful read of Scripture to turn that same passage into license for prostituting the name of Christ in the political process. Or even further, as a justification for turning their rebuke of "Christian" tax evasion on its head by using OPW (Other People's Wampum) in the form of taxes to assuage one's feelings of compassion on the sick.

Do you think Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority was a net plus for advancing God's kingdom in the minds of non-Christians? That so many even today think that to become a Christian they necessarily must also be Reaganite Republicans?

If I can't make a political argument that can stand on its own without using Jesus as a crutch, perhaps it is time for me to consider that the argument might be a tad weak.

Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

If government was the best and highest means of accomplishing God's goals, Jesus should've ditched the route of the cross and set up an earthly kingdom. There would've been no shortage of support for that. In fact, his rejection of that route was in no small part responsible for his crucifixion.

[Nonc Hilare]

Dear Distoibed:

The question asked in the OP was "Does God support universal healthcare?". My response is that there is nothing is scripture prohibiting it, and a lot that indicates that he just might.

The Pope disagrees with me in his new encyclical and says, "Yes, God supports universal health care". I'm not Catholic, so to me the Pope is just a another smart and devout Christian. I don't go as far as the Pope, but I do think withholding healthcare in order to make a profit is a sin.

I clearly put out a position in favor of a privately owned healthcare system operated as a public utility. That is decidedly not free universal healthcare any more than is everyone getting free electricity and sewer. But you still keep up with strawman argumentation.

I'm waiting for you to make your position plain. You are running me in circles but have not elucidated a clear position yourself. Please go back to the OP and answer the question independently from my comments.

While you are at it would you please explain how your exegesis of Romans 13 reveals the early church in Rome to be a nest of tax scofflaws? That's a new concept for me. Considering that our government is now training ministers to preach a "Marshall Law friendly" interpretation of Romans it might make an interesting new thread.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

If it's any consolation, I find you a bit slippery as well.

In any event, I'm overloaded with work, and I somewhat despair of satisfactorily meeting your demands.

On top of that, it seems to me the only folks interested in this thread are you and me. Otherwise, the only sound seems to be the chirping of crickets.

I hate to withdraw, but I must at the very least defer to a later time to be able to respond in what I, at least, consider a thoughtful manner.

I thought I at least owed you the courtesy of letting you know.

[Wellington]

That's him - there he is folks, yes - Nonc Hilaire! Yes, give it up everybody - Nonc Hilaire - last man standing - c'mon, let's here it for 'im - yeah! YEAH!!

(applause swells, peaks then slowly fades as browsers close for the night)