• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

2017 is 1984

Status
Not open for further replies.

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are saying that we should not provide free healthcare and that we as a country should let people suffer, not provide comfort for them and treat them as infidels because they can not provide for their own. That's what you are saying, correct? If not, please further explain.

I am saying what Scripture says.

IF, you trust God, He is the creator and provider and your Father.
IF, you believe His Word, He provides your needs, He gives you examples of HOW TO, follow HIS WAY.

OR...

One can make the Government of men their daddy, who digs in other people's pockets to provide for whom THEY acknowledge is asking and THEY determine is "qualified".

No. I do not support compelled theft.

Yes. I do support to trust God and that He is the provider, by and through His WAYS.
 

Brent W

Active Member
One can make the Government of men their daddy, who digs in other people's pockets to provide for whom THEY acknowledge is asking and THEY determine is "qualified".

But if you do trust God, then why not trust God that that is the system that he wants in place? This country twice elected a President that supported this healthcare system and now a Republican Congress has rejected repealing it. Why does this not also play into God's hand?
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But if you do trust God, then why not trust God that that is the system that he wants in place?
This country twice elected a President that supported this healthcare system and now a Republican Congress has rejected repealing it. Why does this not also play into God's hand?

Let's be clear ~

The subject was concerning FREE healthcare.
And you commented on the decency of the government providing healthcare.

Are you promoting the government should be a healthcare provider of FREE healthcare services?
 

Covenanter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
health care free
free tuition

Someone was receiving something FREE, which does not mean the providers were working for FREE or the supplies were FREE.
It simply means SOMEONE else was paying the portion another didn't.

It's called "redistribution of wealth". If one guy HAS wealth and another guy wants something, but can't afford it.... TAKE it from the wealthy guy and pay the costs the other guy could not afford. How is that right?

Micah 2:1 Woe to those who devise iniquity,
And work out evil on their beds!
At morning light they practice it,
Because it is in the power of their hand.
2 They covet fields and take them by violence,
Also houses, and seize them.
So they oppress a man and his house,
A man and his inheritance.

All things are not equal. Not all rich people are reaping the rewards of their labour & creativity. Many of the poor do not have the option of working for a living. They have no land to cultivate; the factories have been closed; they have caring responsibilities; their rents have been increased; they're too old; too ill.

As far as the rich are concerned, the poor who once worked for them have no useful function now their jobs are exported. Let them live & die in squalor. They're just a liability.

Should the church take responsibility? Responsible Christians are unlikely to have a large disposable income - they are committed to local church, missions & charity anyway.

The state has regulated land & property ownership & provides the services for law & order & national security. Surely it has responsibility for the health & welfare of all its citizens?

Increased taxation does not make the rich poorer, but austerity measures do make the poor poorer.
 

Brent W

Active Member
Let's be clear ~

The subject was concerning FREE healthcare.
And you commented on the decency of the government providing healthcare.

Are you promoting the government should be a healthcare provider of FREE healthcare services?

Yes I thought that was clear. I am a supporter of a Single Payer Healthcare system, to be exactly clear on where I wish Healthcare in this country to go. It is the most liberal view I have in life but one I do feel strongly about. I have no problem with my tax money going to help fellow Americans, even if they choose to not help themselves. Life is precious and should be protected. If you believe that before birth you have to believe that after birth as well.

That is my view on healthcare. Hope that clears it up.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But if you do trust God, then why not trust God that that is the system that he wants in place? This country twice elected a President that supported this healthcare system and now a Republican Congress has rejected repealing it. Why does this not also play into God's hand?

I TRUST God, puts in place what PEOPLE "ASK" for.

IF a person ASKS for the government to be their "daddy", or IF a person ASKS for the Lord to be His Father....

Matt 7
7] Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
[8] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

The CAVEAT is ~ God desires a man ASKS HIM ...

There is a lesson on that in; 1 Samuel 8
The PEOPLE had a KING, ie the LORD.
The PEOPLE asked for an earthly king.
They were warned what that would mean.
They ignored the warning.
God gave them what they asked for and suffered the consequences thereof.

God is the provider.
If one desires to ignore God and put their TRUST in a government daddy, they reap the benefits or consequences thereof.
 

Brent W

Active Member
IF a person ASKS for the government to be their "daddy"

I really reject this immature reference to people who support tax payer funded healthcare as them asking the Government to be their daddy. It is immature and not productive to a good conversation. If you wish to treat my views with respect then I will happily return the favor. I do not believe people in need are asking the Government to be their "daddy" and I believe it is very demeaning to imply that.

You have my views on this and I will happily step aside from discussion with you if you choose to keep with the same tone as above.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Micah 2:1 Woe to those who devise iniquity,
And work out evil on their beds!
At morning light they practice it,
Because it is in the power of their hand.
2 They covet fields and take them by violence,
Also houses, and seize them.
So they oppress a man and his house,
A man and his inheritance.

All things are not equal. Not all rich people are reaping the rewards of their labour & creativity. Many of the poor do not have the option of working for a living. They have no land to cultivate; the factories have been closed; they have caring responsibilities; their rents have been increased; they're too old; too ill.

As far as the rich are concerned, the poor who once worked for them have no useful function now their jobs are exported. Let them live & die in squalor. They're just a liability.

Should the church take responsibility? Responsible Christians are unlikely to have a large disposable income - they are committed to local church, missions & charity anyway.

The state has regulated land & property ownership & provides the services for law & order & national security. Surely it has responsibility for the health & welfare of all its citizens?

Increased taxation does not make the rich poorer, but austerity measures do make the poor poorer.

The state is an entity made up of the people sitting in offices the people of the state, set there to make decisions.

You giving me a list of decisions the public becomes "subject to" based on the publics' election to set in office whom "they" chose, is of no consequence to me.

The government was never given the authority to dictate what a man exposes himself to. If a man wants to eat junk food, or breath benzene, or inhale smoke or not work or not provide for his children he elected to have....so what? Why does the consequence of a mans choices become the public's burden?

Welfare? Welfare was specifically outlined in the Constitution a LONG time ago.
It had nothing to do with "health" and was specifically a few things that would be APPLICABLE to everyone equally.

You want to invent something and patent it, the laws apply equally to everyone.
You want to navigate water-ways, the laws apply equally to everyone.
You want to trade in your gold or silver for bank notes, the value applies equally to everyone.
You want to travel roads or byways, the laws apply equally to everyone.

You want the government to provide you with FOOD, HOUSING, CLOTHING, MEDICAL, EDUCATION, blah, blah, free, free, you make them your provider, you become a dependent, and they are your daddy.

And IFY, the government produces nothing, to have the financial means to GIVE a man something for no effort on the mans part. Thus the Government must selectively TAKE from whom "THEY" dictate shall give, and the Government must "qualify" whom "THEY" dictate shall receive.

The government does not grow food, build houses, manufacture clothing, produce compound medicines, build hospitals, educate people to become Doctors, blah, blah.

You want to follow the way of God, Trust Him. He is your provider, your Father.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I really reject this immature reference to people who support tax payer funded healthcare as them asking the Government to be their daddy. It is immature and not productive to a good conversation. If you wish to treat my views with respect then I will happily return the favor. I do not believe people in need are asking the Government to be their "daddy" and I believe it is very demeaning to imply that.

You have my views on this and I will happily step aside from discussion with you if you choose to keep with the same tone as above.

You take personal offense, when none was directed to you.
I said nothing about a person WHO supports the government providing heathcare, ASKING the government to be their daddy.

What I said was, the "PERSON" who subjects "themselves" to dependency on the government for their "NEEDS", is making the government their daddy.

A person who subjects themselves to God as their provider, is making the LORD their Father.

I do not care whom YOU subject yourself to. I do not care if you think my position is immature, it is Biblical.
If you think it a great idea a government should tax "some" to "provide" for the needs and wants of "some, whom they (gov't) qualify", that is your right. However it is my right to not agree, that the government has Lawful Constitutional authority to take from one to give to another.
 

Brent W

Active Member
You take personal offense, when none was directed to you.

I personally have taken no offense. I only object to the reference because it is petty and not productive to good debate.

I said nothing about a person WHO supports the government providing heathcare, ASKING the government to be their daddy.

What I said was, the "PERSON" who subjects "themselves" to dependency on the government for their "NEEDS", is making the government their daddy.[/quote]

And you do not know that person and yet are judging them based on their need for help from a Government body. I do not see a productive side of judgement on people you do not know. Maybe you are being to general and that is causing my confusion here? Can you get into specifics and not general terms?

I do not care whom YOU subject yourself to. I do not care if you think my position is immature, it is Biblical.

Your position is not immature, your use of the term daddy when referencing this group of unknown people is. That was my only complaint with your views.

If you think it a great idea a government should tax "some" to "provide" for the needs and wants of "some, whom they (gov't) qualify", that is your right. However it is my right to not agree, that the government has Lawful Constitutional authority to take from one to give to another.

I absolutely have no problem disagreeing with you. I personally oppose the income tax in favor of another system. However, I live in reality and we are never getting rid of the income tax. What I can do is try to keep as much of my tax money inside of this country. One very important system inside of this country that I think warrants funding is the healthcare system by means of a single payer system.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes I thought that was clear. I am a supporter of a Single Payer Healthcare system, to be exactly clear on where I wish Healthcare in this country to go. It is the most liberal view I have in life but one I do feel strongly about. I have no problem with my tax money going to help fellow Americans, even if they choose to not help themselves. Life is precious and should be protected. If you believe that before birth you have to believe that after birth as well.

That is my view on healthcare. Hope that clears it up.

"I have no problem with my tax money going to help fellow Americans, even if they choose to not help themselves."

Scripture has many teachings on one aiding another and it does not include being forced or compelled to participate in one aiding another. Governments force, God doesn't. You have made yourself clear you are comfortable with government forcing. I am not. I think I have made myself clear, I favor Gods way.
 

Brent W

Active Member
Scripture has many teachings on one aiding another and it does not include being forced or compelled to participate in one aiding another. Governments force, God doesn't. You have made yourself clear you are comfortable with government forcing. I am not. I think I have made myself clear, I favor Gods way.

You keep fighting your fight to not aide those in need that will not help themselves and I will keep fighting mine. We simply won't be able to agree on this, though I do respect your right to have your opinion as it is!
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I personally have taken no offense. I only object to the reference because it is petty and not productive to good debate.

I said nothing about a person WHO supports the government providing heathcare, ASKING the government to be their daddy.

What I said was, the "PERSON" who subjects "themselves" to dependency on the government for their "NEEDS", is making the government their daddy.

And you do not know that person and yet are judging them based on their need for help from a Government body. I do not see a productive side of judgement on people you do not know. Maybe you are being to general and that is causing my confusion here? Can you get into specifics and not general terms?


Your position is not immature, your use of the term daddy when referencing this group of unknown people is. That was my only complaint with your views.

I absolutely have no problem disagreeing with you. I personally oppose the income tax in favor of another system. However, I live in reality and we are never getting rid of the income tax. What I can do is try to keep as much of my tax money inside of this country. One very important system inside of this country that I think warrants funding is the healthcare system by means of a single payer system.[/QUOTE]

A person is either INDEPENDENT or a DEPENDENT.
They either take care of their own needs and wants, or they depend on another to take care of their needs and wants.

Children are "dependents" on their father, dad, daddy, papa.....what ever you want to call their head of household.

Adults who leave their "daddy's" home, are supposed to leave because they have a foundational basis of preparation to be no longer "dependent" on their daddy. When they have stopped depending on their "daddy" for their needs and wants, and formulate a dependency on "something" else, they have created a "new daddy" to depend on for their needs and wants.

I do not favor a person becoming dependent on the government for basic needs or wants, any more that I favor a person becoming dependent on drugs, or anything other thing that becomes someone's elses' burden.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You keep fighting your fight to not aide those in need that will not help themselves and I will keep fighting mine. We simply won't be able to agree on this, though I do respect your right to have your opinion as it is!

You keep fighting your fight to not aide those in need

That is NOT what I said. If you want to understand my view, listen to what I said.

You favor one being FORCED (through taxation of some, not all) to provide aide of "those in need" (which is determined (by the tax collector).

I favor NO FORCING. I favor one providing aide, by and through an individuals desire to give and aide and provide for whom he chooses.
 

Brent W

Active Member
You keep fighting your fight to not aide those in need that will not help themselves and I will keep fighting mine. We simply won't be able to agree on this, though I do respect your right to have your opinion as it is!

I will just quote this again. I disagree of your use of Daddy. Just call them a dependent instead of using a term that infers that they are children. It is demeaning, especially when you do not know of these people you are speaking about and their life.
 

Brent W

Active Member
That is NOT what I said. If you want to understand my view, listen to what I said.

You favor one being FORCED (through taxation of some, not all) to provide aide of "those in need" (which is determined (by the tax collector).

I favor NO FORCING. I favor one providing aide, by and through an individuals desire to give and aide and provide for whom he chooses.

Ok, I have no problem with the Federal Government forcing me to help those in need. Even those that wish to not help themselves. You do. I can sleep at night with my tax money being spent providing 100% free healthcare to everyone. I understand you do not wish that the federal government force you to give up your income as a tax to them and then have them use it to help those that do not wish to help themselves.

I do really understand that.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I personally oppose the income tax in favor of another system.

There was "another" system, when this country was formed. It didn't take long to corrupt the system and those given opportunity to sit in seats of honor, in service TO the office they were seated, to CORRUPT the system given us by Statesmen and now dashed with people called Politicians.
 

Brent W

Active Member
There was "another" system, when this country was formed. It didn't take long to corrupt the system and those given opportunity to sit in seats of honor, in service TO the office they were seated, to CORRUPT the system given us by Statesmen and now dashed with people called Politicians.

I am not disagreeing with you. However, under the system we have I stand by my view on Healthcare.
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I will just quote this again. I disagree of your use of Daddy. Just call them a dependent instead of using a term that infers that they are children. It is demeaning, especially when you do not know of these people you are speaking about and their life.

I am not opposed to calling it what it is or using a cliche.

Government is not a father, however if one is treating the government AS their daddy to provide for them...
I have no problem calling the government their daddy.

If you want to technical ~ it's a master /slave relationship ~ it's a master / subject relationship.
One is responsible for the needs and the other is the receiver according to rules the one responsible sets forth.

Why would "child of" or "slave" or "subject" or "dependent" be demeaning? Is it not truthful one is depending on another? Why is that "demeaning" ? Is it a shame? Is it embarrassing? What is demeaning about it?
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am not disagreeing with you. However, under the system we have I stand by my view on Healthcare.

I know you stand by your view, as do I.

The difference is; your view effected, forces a burden on me and others. And my view effected, causes no burden upon you or others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top