Religious Right: Health Care Reform is Against God's Plan

Maybe this would be a good time to ask, but could someone please explain the notion of God's plan to me? I mean, run with me here.

So God creates man, God puts him in a garden, God creates an Apple, man eats the apple. Now I assume that God, being all seeing, all knowing, and the creator of man knew man would eat the apple. Whether it be a part of his nature (by the way, punishing our entire species for the pursuit of knowledge? How very christian) or as a result of his ability to see the future, or his plan, we were inevitability going to eat the apple. So why exactly are we being punished for something God clearly set up? What is the purpose of punishing tiny little animals for something they cannot help, other than to inflict great pain and misery? I just don't get it.

And then there is the notion of prayer. So god made this plan (presumely trillions of years ago) and everything has been working a-okay since then, until humans show up. Suddenly all these people start praying to god. "Heal my kid." "Help me succeed." That sort of thing. Isn't the whole idea of prayer that god is going to "change" things. God's going to rework the entire order of the cosmos and the final result of all history just to accomidate for our needs, right? Or, conversely, suppose God doesn't change the plan. Well if God is not going change his plan, what the hell was the point of praying in the first place?

someone please explain

I'm not trying to be flippant but the easiest way to understand the questions is to consider this question:

"Why do you make me beat you?"

Some questions while grammatically correct don't have answers because the assumption they are based on has an underlying issue.

If you feel my analysis is incorrect, by all means show me where I've made a few wrong assumptions.

I'm using extreme examples because discussion of choice usually doesn't convey the thought.

If someone is beaten as a child does this mean if they beat their children that they are not responsible for their choice? If they are not responsible because being beaten why not lock up both the child and the child beater to be proactive about it? So that is the part on predestination and choice.

As a side note on the 7th day God was going to make everything fair and easily understandable but instead the slacker rested.

Also if there is an assumption that there is a being outside of time then the concept of time has no relevance. From that beings point of view everything happened at once. All the messages from people trapped within time came in at one time and were all reacted to at one time. The point of view that there is a being watching the universe like TV assumes that this being is trapped within our time which would preclude them from existing "before" or "after" time itself.

So!...taking care of your fellow humans is AGAINST God's plan??? and helping others be healthy is AGAINST God's plan!?!? Well I'll be a son of a..... So I guess it is ALSO God's plan that we who are sane can see beyond your Bu((Sh)t!!...NO?!? Well I guess he left you off of the memo list didn't he

Sorry Icon, your arguments seem a little strawman-esque. By converting my question into a father-child relationship, faliability, moral duty, and self-determination are introduced into the equation when in fact they are not applicable (or you atleast haven't demonstrated they are).

Futhermore, you have no ability to comprehend what it is like to exist outside of time; but regardless of how a God would preceive eternity and the passage of time, the entire notion of omniscent implies knowledge. Before God made the apple, he knew Adam would eat it. Before God said "Do not eat this apple", God knew he would eat it. I'm saying that Adam was set up. To punish a person and his descendents for doing something you INTENDED him to do, something he had no capacity avoid, is down right evil.

It wouldn't of mattered what I typed. I don't know why I bothered.

you have no ability to comprehend

But you ask questions as if you will be able to. So I guess the questions were flawed and meant to be unanswerable.

"But you ask questions as if you will be able to."

I'm not saying I understand God; quite the opposite. I am assuming that if other rational people can take a look at Christianity and say "this makes sense" then I should be able to follow their train of logic and conclude it makes sense as well. Type something logical, it will matter. Type something illogical, and it won't.

Type something logical, it will matter

Sorry to have offended you and I bow deeply to your ridgid idea of what is logical. As an aside this is how most conversations go with the religious right as well. Their questions also are only a method of enforcing existing rigidity they aren't meant to be answered. I'll leave you with the simply answer you want to fight with "'cuzzin' gawd seys sew".

Well thats a pretty disappointing cop out.

Pritchard is blasphemous. A Christian is not to assume he knows the will of god.

Adrian Thorn & iconoclasm:

Both of you are trying to use rational and reasoned thought to describe something that is boty unrational and unreasoned.

Belief in any Diety; call it, him, her, what you will; requires but one action....Faith. Look up the definition of the word and you can end your discussion.

Religious beliefs and rational thought are not compatible concepts.

God I am sure didn't even know what health care was, Christan think they have been save and is to do God's work. The problem is they do not think for themselves only can be told what to do by their preacher, who is just making money off of them.

Has anyone ever seen God, I doubt it you must believe in something that no one can prove even exist. It is your right to believe in God, but for me to believe he disagree with health care.I must see it in writing plus he must appear in the senate to explain why .

Here is my Christian explanation of the events of the garden of Eden.

God made the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve, and the Snake.

God knew that the Snake would tempt Eve with the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that Eve would in turn tempt Adam.

You argue that God's foreknowledge means that Adam and Eve and the Snake had no choice in this whole matter. But there is no philosophical certainty that foreknowledge nullifies freedom of choice. Adam and Eve could have not listened to the Snake and eaten from the Tree of Life instead.

So God could have not created the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or he could have not created the Snake. However their presence was deemed by God to be "very good". Just as God has the freedom to sin, so does Man. This was a situation God thought "very good" as his goal was to create a microcosm of himself: Man in the image of God.

Now you say it would only be an evil being that would set this whole situation up with the foreknowledge that it would lead to the punishment of Adam and Eve and the Snake. But if God has foreknowledge of all time, then he must also had known that he too would allow his own Son to be punished by Man, as the atonement for Man's sins.

In this way, Man comes to possess knowledge of good and evil by sinning. His innocence is lost. God transforms Man's sin into his own salvation through making the ultimate sin, "killing God", Man's salvation.

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians

"Belief in any Diety; call it, him, her, what you will; requires but one action....Faith"

I reject the notion that faith is irrational, sorry. Many, many, many of our actions are done without concrete proof or a logical train of thought and yet we muddle our way through life. In my general opinion, philosophers tend to be too quick to ignore the internally consistent belief that produces seemingly irrational actions to a viewer; but make perfect sense within that belief system.

iconclasm..is that a steam powered Dilak I see as your icon? COOOL!

Adrian/iconoclasm -

Pardon me for butting in - it seems like you two are getting a bit miffed at each other through what I see is a misunderstanding. iconoclasm - you quoted Adrian's line in #1.6, but only partially. You left off the rest of his statement, which made it sound like an insulting remark towards you. I read his statement, actually as: "Furthermore, no one has the ability to comprehend what it is like to exist outside of time ...". Which, to my reading, simply sets up his later point.

Adrian - I read iconoclasm's response to you in #1.2 as a 'short-hand' way of saying that the way you set up your question in #1.1 doomed any hope of having a cogent response. You interpreted God's underlying scheme for things in a way that wouldn't allow a response consistent with the construct - hence, iconoclast's observation on the 'underlying issue'.

Adrian - you set up the situation assuming a deterministic interpretation of God's Plan generally known as 'predestination' - with elements of omniscience and omnipotence thrown in. There are many other interpretations of "God's Plan" that incorporate varying degrees of self-determination - from Calvinism to Mormonism. Some of those visions of God's Plan are more consistent with looking for an answer to the question that you pose in msg # 1.1.

For some interesting reading about the Bible and Health care, see here and here. Then again, there's the whole concept of Christian Scientists .

Just to bring this entire message around to close Adrian's question about health reform, God's Plan and apples - remember: "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." Perhaps that's God's Plan.

Again, sorry to butt in - but I hated to see you two get miffed over what I saw as a simple misunderstanding. I'll butt back out now. Have a great day, you two.

A common theme you see all throughout the Bible in fact is that Plan B is revealed to be God's real Plan A all along, and the Plan A was really just a sacrificial lead-in to Plan B.

"But there is no philosophical certainty that foreknowledge nullifies freedom of choice."

True, but if you note I don't just list his ominscience as being the only reason why the entire setup was unfair.

Lets pretend your a carpenter. I hire you to put a staircase in my house, I tell you I'm an architect and then hand you some plans to follow to the letter. If you build those stairs and they collapse, then I could argue that they failed because of your poor craftsmanship. (This is the basic argument of Christianity). But if it becomes clear that I'd purposefully designed the staircase to collapse, then to punish you is totally unreasonable. Regardless if you "could" have made tweaks to the design or used difference materials, you weren't suppose to build a working staircase.

God didn't design us as perfect, if he did we would have been angels. He made us with flaws, so why is it that myself and all my children need to be punished for HIS design choice?

"Just as God has the freedom to sin, so does Man."

God did not create us all altrustic beings with a freedom to choose. If the pursuit of knowledge is a sin, then we have not a choice but an INCLINATION to sin. Humans love to learn; its one of the handful of universalities of our species. Why not punish us for enjoying food or enjoying the company of friends?

"But if God has foreknowledge of all time, then he must also had known that he too would allow his own Son to be punished by Man, as the atonement for Man's sins."

He's @!$%#ing GOD. What, we need to suffer a few million years before HE decides we've suffered enough and he sends down his own kid? I've got a better idea. Skip the tree, skip the snake, forget the suffering and death of millions of people and MAKE MAN BETTER. If we come short of his vision, then make us better.

And then there is the Jesus thing. First and foremost, I find the whole Jesus parable totally unimpressive. There are people living TODAY who were more worthy of worship than Jesus Christ, but thats a different conversation. Again, we get a scenario where God has purposefully engineered an incredibily sadistic scenario which involves an unnecessary amount of death and misery; this time against his own son. Again, God knows exactly whats going to happen if his kid goes down there; according to you thats exactly why he sent his kid down there. Let little J nailed to a cross and, apparently, our sins will be forgiven. How exactly does getting nailed to a cross amount to taking on our sins. While I'm sure a crufixation hurt, it is in no way equal to the sum total of the suffering one man has inflicited on his brother. Why bother with this whole Jesus thing? Why not descend from the clouds and say "humanity, here is the deal. Worship me, obey these teachings, and I'll forgive you for the apple thing."?

At first, I figured it was again a matter of choice. This idea that if man needs to "see" God in order to behave, then ultimately they're not really learning their lesson. This made perfect sense until I ran into the fact that you have to worship Jesus to get into heaven. This means that I can go through my how life as a humble, compassionate man who gives all he can and takes only what he needs but no matter how hard I try, I'll never get as close to heaven as George Bush will be. Bush sends thousands of men to die and kill all for the money, but if he genuinely repents he WILL get into heaven. And if you take that, we're actually worse off than before! If this is all about becoming better people and worshipping God, why even bother telling them in the first place? It will only encourage the worst components of humanity to falsely pursue religion. Why not simply let the good into heaven? If this is only about being a good person, what does it matter if I worship God? I see the world around me, I see the suffering, and I labor for my fellow man. I don't do this because a God compells me to, but because of a choice. It seems to me that an action done willingly is more beneviolent than an action done only through religious indoctrination or fear of God. If this is all about choice, why the "do it because I said so attitude". Lets again go back to the apple. Why not sit Adam down and say, "Adam, if you eat that apple you're going to become aware of things that will make all that you know disappear. If you like this place, you won't eat that apple". Now there is an actual choice. Adam had NO idea what the consequences of his action are, and punishing him for doing something he didn't understand is....once again....evil. I said to my son "Adam, keep your hands away from the stove". He touched it anyway, and burned his hand. As a punishment, I chopped the hand off and said he'll never know what its like to have two hands again and then said I'll chop the hand off of every kid he ever has; and if he doesn't love me for it I'll chop off his other hand too.

Adrian - I read iconoclasm's response to you in #1.2 as a 'short-hand' way of saying that the way you set up your question in #1.1 doomed any hope of having a cogent response. You interpreted God's underlying scheme for things in a way that wouldn't allow a response consistent with the construct - hence, iconoclast's observation on the 'underlying issue'.

Adrian - you set up the situation assuming a deterministic interpretation of God's Plan generally known as 'predestination' - with elements of omniscience and omnipotence thrown in. There are many other interpretations of "God's Plan" that incorporate varying degrees of self-determination - from Calvinism to Mormonism. Some of those visions of God's Plan are more consistent with looking for an answer to the question that you pose in msg # 1.1.

Thanks for your clarification. I'll admit that I've set up the question in away that makes a rational answer in possible, but thats neither intentional nor something I can avoid. Its were I'm at. If I can get an answer that makes sense to me and resolves these questions, I can embrace Christianity. I've never studied Christianity in depth, so I'll google around and see what I can find about God's Plan and Calvinism/Mormonism.

Adrian, If only your sensible commentary would open the eye of certain people.

Above is spam, check column

Your whole post is, as Ed says: "psycho-talk".

To Whom It May Concern:

I tried to remove my 1.24 response to 1.22's post and just move on, but could not remove it even though I still had time on it. Anyway, I meant it, but just thought it was pointless to respond at all, hence I tried to remove it. Oh well. Eventually maybe I'll elect to just stay away from religion and politics.

Moonstream, almost every sentence you've written is a complete and utter falsehood. You should think about reading some balanced news coverage and stay away from all the hatred out there.

i guess medicare is a sin then. Christians should immediately write their congressman and demand a sinful socialist program like Medicare be repealled. Seniors who are eligible for Medicare beenfits are most at risk of this sin.

I have a feeling these folks might be shocked as to where they end up in the afterlife. Might be a bit warmer than they think....

I have thought that for a long time. Everything about those people is the opposite of sprititual law. No caring, compassion, very negative and judgemental. Worship money.

I dunno Frank. I'm pretty sure I saw a picture of Jesus riding a raptor SOMEWHERE in the bible...

When all else fails...... use God!

One can use religion to justify just about anything and everything. We can turn this argument around and state that Jesus Christ would be all for universal health care because he preached brother love, camaraderie, and caring for your fellow brethren. How, pray tell, is profiting (exhorbitantly) off of someone's misfortune to get sick brotherly love or caring for your fellow brethren. In fact, I'd wager that Jesus Christ would be appalled if he saw what was taking place today with the insurance companies gauging people and coming up with evil clauses such as "The Pre-existing Conditions" one.

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

Adrian, I will try to address most of your post. I have studied Christian theology for many years and will try to do my best ...

• "But there is no philosophical certainty that foreknowledge nullifies freedom of choice."

• True, but if you note I don't just list his ominscience as being the only reason why the entire setup was unfair.
• Lets pretend your a carpenter. I hire you to put a staircase in my house, I tell you I'm an architect and then hand you some plans to follow to the letter. If you build those stairs and they collapse, then I could argue that they failed because of your poor craftsmanship. (This is the basic argument of Christianity). But if it becomes clear that I'd purposefully designed the staircase to collapse, then to punish you is totally unreasonable. Regardless if you "could" have made tweaks to the design or used difference materials, you weren't suppose to build a working staircase.

After God created the world and Man, he deemed it all to be "very good". I don't think that humans are flawed, only incomplete. I will agree that God created Man to be incomplete, but only because according to the Bible, it was through weakness and not power that God found his own completion, his own perfection, in the sense that perfection means completeness, not flawlessness (this is in line with the original Greek meaning of the word).

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. (2 Corinthians 12:9)

The "flawed" nature of Man is actually our greatest blessing and the source of true Power.

God didn't design us as perfect, if he did we would have been angels. He made us with flaws, so why is it that myself and all my children need to be punished for HIS design choice?

The only punishment for the knowledge of good and evil was death, and the related punishment, childbirth. According to the Bible, there was no pregnancy before there was also death. Hard work was also a punishment -- we were sent out of the garden, out of the "divine womb" so to speak, to live in the same kind of harsh unforgiving environment of chaos that God endures. Within God, everything is easy and great, and outside, we learn to live by the sweat of our brow. This is meant to be like a furnace to harden and perfect us through toil, as we increase in knowledge. That is the path we chose -- God knew Adam would choose it, but he didn't force him to.

"Just as God has the freedom to sin, so does Man."

God did not create us all altrustic beings with a freedom to choose. If the pursuit of knowledge is a sin, then we have not a choice but an INCLINATION to sin. Humans love to learn; its one of the handful of universalities of our species. Why not punish us for enjoying food or enjoying the company of friends?

It was not any knowledge actually that was forbidden but the knowledge of good and evil. It was the end of innocence. God clearly told Adam and Eve what would happen, that if they ate it, they would die, and they even repeated the consequences to the Snake before believing him over God.

"But if God has foreknowledge of all time, then he must also had known that he too would allow his own Son to be punished by Man, as the atonement for Man's sins."

He's @!$%#ing GOD. What, we need to suffer a few million years before HE decides we've suffered enough and he sends down his own kid? I've got a better idea. Skip the tree, skip the snake, forget the suffering and death of millions of people and MAKE MAN BETTER. If we come short of his vision, then make us better.

He is making us better, only the greatness of God is that God is making Man better through Man. First, God own being lives a human life. This "branch" of God (as it is called in the Old Testament, an "offshoot" of God's being I suppose) is called God's Son in the New Testament. He lives, suffers, and dies like an ordinary person. The punishment, however, is converted into a blessing. When we die, we don't actually die, we live forever. And when we suffer, we are able to give praise to God. We can go out and do the hard work that Adam was charged with, we can go through the pains of childbirth, but it is with thankfulness and praise and a cheerful attitude -- this is the spirit of God living inside of us!

As for the rest of your comment, well, I don't actually believe that God is as robotic and legalistic in his judgments as you. The Bible tells a different story. Often the people who believe they can invoke "religious machinery" as a means to "beat the system" of their own self-induced fear are the subject of ridicule by the truly spiritual people, all throughout the Bible. In the Old Testament you see this mostly with idol worshipers, and in the New, with the Pharisees and with the false teachers of Christianity that are addressed in the various letters.

We are living the processes of God's plan now. The fact that they are laborious and slow to our perception, spanning across our mortal lives is just a symbol of God's vastness and resembles the processes of Nature and Universe, which are as close to God as we'll ever see, physically. Perhaps to God, this whole process has been like flipping on a lightswitch. I think you would only be satisfied having been born already in Paradise. Well from God and through God and to God are all things, so in affect, you have already lived an eternity in Paradise and are how here in the furnace with the rest of us. What God has planned for Man is unknown, but according to the Bible, we are to share in the glory of God's inheritance as Sons.

Oh also, I don't think anyone is deserving of worship except God. Worshiping Jesus, praying to Jesus, etc., is actually not right -- Jesus's entire ministry was to direct our eyes to God. When we are baptized, we are baptized in Jesus's blood, but it is God's grace that forgives our sins. Jesus is the image of God, a living and true idol of God.

As for religion and repentance versus living a good and humble life (additionally we are called to live a life of sacrifice) Jesus says

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)

Actions speak louder than words.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

I don't know where you have gotten your information about Christianity, but it sounds like you're not very well "versed" in the Bible, but have only heard the ramblings and manipulations of the "Christian media" machine!

But anyways, when it is all said and done, we won't merely have the knowledge of God, but the experience as well. God is blessing humanity with the experiences that will shape us into his children, not just in name but in deed. Our perception of this blessing, instantaneous from the perspective of eternity, is what we conceive of as time. It is the experience pouring into us, making us grow.

Bible quotes are nice when you're in Church or theology class in College, but this is a Government matter.

I think it's about time we hold churches to the deal that they stay out of government and they can be tax exempt. If they start preaching on government then they should loose that exemption. A Deal is a Deal.

"A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792.

Very cool quote, Dan!

WWJD?

He would want us to help each other.

The belief of god comes from the core of the mentally and emotionally weak....those scared to death of dying. how terrible becometh thou earthly being, for the returneth of god??? Its rehtorical: just one more thought to ponder

The problem with religion, and judeo/christian/islam in particular, is that it could have happened two ways: First it actually happened the way that we are told it happened, with some embellishments. Secondly, the political class used these stories and moral archetypes they represented to control people through a belief in something higher - which allowed them to do whatever they wanted.

The first is, sorry to say, highly implausible. The former is highly plausible, even likely. We see in the bible, God's position, and Jesus' teachings are entirely inconsistant. We are told that our conduct on Earth is not important, and that some great reward awaits. We see through the new Testament that those who ignore God's plan will prosper on Earth, but be punished in some unseen / unproven afterlife. What is interesting is that while those who break God's rules who are part of the elite are generally spared any consequences on Earth, except wealth and power, thos who are common face torments both on Earth and after??

Adrians ethical discussion of causality is difficult for Christians because they make the facts fit the story and not the other way around. Why would God, as noted, the omnipotent and omincient creator create a world where the behavior contrary to his teachings was rewarded and compliance was punished? Since he created it why not get it right ....

The standard response, as noted above is that this world is some sort of a prolonged SAT for heaven. We are placed in this world to get tested for heaven ..... Now even this theory doesn't make sense. Why? If we were put in this test to see our fitness, why are we judged by the same rules despite vastly different starting points?

I mean, if as a child you are neglected, molested, impovrished does that not increase significantly your propensity to break the law? to be bad? not to have Job's faith - remember Job had both faith and wealth. His wealth and position was "taken away" and he maintained his faith. How about the prostitute or thief who's never had the wealth, who's been exposed to other's sin and neglect all their lives - where are they to get faith from?? And why would the exposure to another's sins as a victim affect our own ability to sin.

Now in Jesus' teachings he acknowleges this. He states that the rich and powerful will not reach heaven. He ignores them except to tell them to divest themselves of their wealth. But, being the son of God is that enough?? These people were presecuting his people severly in front of him .... His father had struck down the same sort of evil directly for thousands of years!

Furthermore, Jesus does acknowledge that the lack of sin in a man who is not tempted makes his failure to sin less of an accomplishment. It is not enough to be a rich man who does not steal or exploit prostitutes - if one has the ability one must do more ....

The real problem is that there is nothing in these books that elicts a challenge to the existing power structure, in fact, it notably recommends that we live within it. This is frankly insane since at the same time we are stating that the "human" kingdoms are morally and ethically juxtaposed against the kingdon of God! So why should Jesus, God, Mohammed support human politics which are not conducive to the behaviors which he wishes to promote?

Now this all in the context tat we have no real idea of what God is doing, if he existed. There are many different incarnations of God, and most agree on little. But should the goal of our religion not be the alignment of a christian Earth with a Christian heaven? Then why do we strive to create an Earth much more like hell, except for a tiny group which benefits from it all....

This is a scary story, and even scarier is the claimby these obviously non Christian leaders that their "version" of Christianity requires political activity on the part of their followers ....

I like when TheJonesGirl says: "I have a feeling these folks might be shocked as to where they end up in the afterlife. Might be a bit warmer than they think...."

It makes me think of Matthew 7:21-23 (New King James Version) - "²¹ “ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ "

Let's just be careful not to stereotype all people of faith based on this one group's stance and this one article. Here's another point of view:

U.S. Religious Left Wades Into Healthcare Reform

God: Religious Right is Against God's Plan

So much for Medicaid and Medicare, I guess!

Chasing,

That's been my problem with the right's opposition to single payor health insurance from the beginning .... they seem to be OK with some "deserving" people having coverage, but not everyone - so who gets to choose who gets it or not? If the constitution, the founding fathers and now even the bible are against providing benefits to the citizens of the USA then how can we continue to pay anyone's health insurance, even seniors, the military, politicians, bureaucrats ......

The real problome is these guys are using morals from 100 years ago and trying to apply them to modern life .... People who don't work should starve on the streets until they find work, the poor are immoral and lazy, thats why they are poor, the rich are somehow moral and hard working despite significant eivdence to the contrary ..... And God has a plan that all of this makes sense???? That must be some document!

Kyanna,

my critique of religion is not to say religion or Christianity is bad or evil, but to deal with the ehtical dilemma of crossing politics with faith. Jesus was very conscious to avoid politics, instead concentrating on ministering to the people. If everyone in the USA who claimed to be a Christian acted as one there would be no poverty, crime, homelessness, prostitution, exploitation, abuse ..... etc. The problem is when these people claim that Christianity supports their position which is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the religion.

The world may be c%$#@py place, but trying to suggest that God made it that way does not ingratiate him to me. I have seen so much good done in my lifetime by individuals and small groups, both christian and secular that I know the value of compassion and purpose - whether using Gods word or not - that we meust promote this behavior - not hate and exclusion using religion as an excuse....

"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. . . . For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect –- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time" (Matthew 24:10-13;24 NIV).

My problem above is that we continue to claim to "believe" in Jesus, yet follow the false teachings of secular leaders who are the very definition of false prophets .... they exploit, abuse, murder rape and worse .... all claiming the support of God!! I can find no support in the New Testament for this behavior ....

economics101

Leaving people to starve in the street has never been considered moral.

"Egoism, in a broader sense, has been... presented as the source of moral action. It has been said that we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, bind up the wounds of the man beaten by thieves, pour oil and wine into them, set him on our own beast and bring him to the inn, because we receive ourselves pleasure from these acts... These good acts give us pleasure, but how happens it that they give us pleasure? Because nature hath implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses... The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist had he intended man for a social animal without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule... That a man owes no duty to which he is not urged by some impulsive feeling... is correct, if referred to the standard of general feeling in the given case, and not to the feeling of a single individual... Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

but to deal with the ehtical dilemma of crossing politics with faith

I have seen so much good done in my lifetime by individuals and small groups, both christian and secular that I know the value of compassion and purpose - whether using Gods word or not - that we meust promote this behavior - not hate and exclusion using religion as an excuse....

I agree 100% - I believe that the majority of people of faith would also agree. It's that obnoxious minority that gets all the press and comes to represent, in the collective consciousness, what all people of faith are about. It seems that whenever there is a political argument, this obnoxious minority is right in the middle of it "representing" the viewpoint of all people of faith. I believe that the majority of people of faith would be just tickled pink if their faith not be drug into these political arguments by wing elements on both sides of the spectrum.

My personal opinion, as a person of faith, is that if Obama is able to get health care coverage for every American, it will be the greatest humanitarian accomplishment of his administration. Shame on us all for not pushing this forward 16 years ago...

Dan - that is an excellent quote, and, if I may, relates directly to this discussion. Most people has a natural urge towards compassion - we feel good by helping others. This is why we live together in a soceity to begin with. There are a number of people who do not have these inclinations, but the general rule is that people are kind and helpful.

What becomes a concern is when soceity begins conditioning citizens to ignore these impulses, especially using nonsense like religion, politics, or the media to do it. We no longer feel compassion for the poor, the homeless because we become convinced that our compassion is wasted on them. We belive that they are lazy, insane, on drugs or choose this existance - not based on any actually evidence, but on the say so of self serving groups and individuals.

Its exactly the hypocrisy of the prolife movement that is expressed above - to save unborn children we should sacrifice the lives and health of millions of living children?? How does this make sense - either you are standing for life and preservation of life at all costs, or you are against it .....

The Bible explains everything if you take the time to read or study it. From what I have learned so far god sent us here from heaven, we were once angels who commited sin there(that is why our souls long to feel happiness)so as a result we are punished by being sent here to earth. He's giving us the opportunity to seek him so that we can be saved & have the promise of eternal life through following the bible. I hope that answers your question. :)

The Bible explains everything if you take the time to read or study it.

So does the Iliad.

He's giving us the opportunity to seek him so that we can be saved & have the promise of eternal life through following the bible.

So, God punishes us by kicking us out, then without innately imbuing us with knowledge of him, require us to grovel at his feet for a chance at going back to the sky palace... but only after we die.

God is a dick.

Jack, I know it sounds mean but obviously we must have done something pretty bad to be sent here to suffer, so who are we to judge the one who created us. What do humans do when someone commits a crime, put them in jail. This is like our prison. He left us the bible to guide us if we want to know the truth & are willing to accept it.

obviously we must have done something pretty bad to be sent here to suffer

Perhaps you suffer. I don't particularly think life is suffering. Also, it's ridiculous to say "Dude, life sucks, so obviously it's perfectly sensible to dream up some magical sky daddy who divinely b----slapped us all way back when." Incidentally, that's precisely what you're doing.

so who are we to judge the one who created us

I've been known to judge my parents. As for your God, he's a figment of a bunch of dead guys' collective imagination.

This is like our prison

I pity those who treat their lives as prison sentences. I like my existence here.

He left us the bible to guide us if we want to know the truth & are willing to accept it.

The same Bible that has changed innumerable times over millennia? The same Bible that has seen arbitrary abridging and editing, most notably in the two Councils of Nicaea?

Thanks, but if it started as anything resembling truth, it sure ain't truth now.

What we have here is modern day Pharisees.

You guys need to bone up on system theory, physics and theology.

As Milton noted in "Paradise Lost", God foresees, but does not foreordain.

You guys need to bone up on system theory, physics and theology.

Who, precisely, is "you guys"?

As Milton noted in "Paradise Lost", God foresees, but does not foreordain.

Tell that to the Christians who think Jesus fulfilled certain prophecies in the Old Testament.

Jack, Malcolm -

You are going at this wrong .... Christians belive in God first, and then look for arguments to support their beliefs .... you are looking for arguments to support their beliefs without accepting that their is a God - As soon as you make that switch, finding God is a pretty difficult task.

I used that the jail part as an example, some people have horrible lives worst than others, some people have it good for the most part. But our lives are not perfect & at some point in everyones lives you experience pain in some way. If you want to believe there is no God, I respect that, that's your choice, I was just simply replying to a comment someone else wrote. As for the bible being changed, nothing has changed from the new & old testment which the only true bible if you read the end in revelations you will see:) You get the same spiritual meaning no matter what version you have.

Who, precisely, is "you guys"?

Every Tom, Dick and Harry who has commented in this column so far.

In both Genesis and Isaiah there are prophecies of Christ or of a saviour. A Christian holds that the prophecies were fulfilled as a matter of Scripture.

economics101, who said anything about finding God? To me, the real subject is whether those who denounce healthcare reform, as Christians, can do so without straying from the teachings of Christ.

Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Christ is the quintessential good neighbour. Everybody should stand back a bit and ask this question: Am I a good neibhbour?

Another question: Should the government be a good neighbour? Thoreau addressed this in "Civil Disobediance" 1849.

"Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen. "

must have done something pretty bad to be sent here to suffer

This is the entire problem with Christianity. What an obscene and immoral doctrine.

me-435164 and Ryan Booker are both mistaken. Please do not make an opinion on a work or book without reading it yourself. And that means reading it honestly.

No rants please.

Hey Malcolm I agree with you .... my point was that when you tell a christian that god doesn't exist for xyz reasons you are forgeting that he won't be swayed ... becuase he started his journey believing that God existed and looking for reasons to support that belief.

As for God and helath care, this is ridiculous - I can't see how anyone could interpret Christianity as not supporting universal health care ..... but Im not a Christian.

I am not a Christian, seeing that I am convinced by both system theory and physics that once the "singularity" "BANGED", it was hands off. And it was hands off for God's (or whatever sound that you would utter) ends.

There are grounds for "Intelligent Design", but that occurred at the initiation of the Big Bang. This universe rides the fine knife edge between chaos and statism. Statism in this case referring to the ontology of physics. Think of a Bell Curve. Smack dab in the middle.

In all my studies in theology, not once have I ever seen the question raised as to why. Or to put it more succintly, what was in it for God?

I have a theory, and it will always remain a theory, because of the very construct of this universe. And rightly so, given that people are already willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy others on the mere faith that God exists.

God forbid that we would know for a fact that God exists. Imagine what a hellhole we would live in if that was so.

my point was that when you tell a christian that god doesn't exist for xyz reasons you are forgeting that he won't be swayed ... becuase he started his journey believing that God existed and looking for reasons to support that belief.

As a person more than a few have characterized as outspokenly atheist, I have to disagree here. There are certainly a large number of Christians who fit this bill to a T, having been indoctrinated initially in a religious doctrine. However, a number have (with no comment on the amount of logic involved) arrived at God as a conclusion derived from personal observation, typically using the ol' "Dang, I find it this too incredible/time-consuming to explain, and I can't stand telling someone I don't know something, so, voila, God."

While this approach contains on logic, it is still distinct from starting with God's existence and justifying everything ex post facto.

Please do not make an opinion on a work or book without reading it yourself. And that means reading it honestly.

No rants please.

Gotta love baseless arrogance.

There are grounds for "Intelligent Design", but that occurred at the initiation of the Big Bang

In other words, you don't think there are grounds for Intelligent Design.

This universe rides the fine knife edge between chaos and statism. Statism in this case referring to the ontology of physics. Think of a Bell Curve. Smack dab in the middle.

Care to explain this pseudo-intellectual drivel? Or, will you simply persist in wallowing in lofty, superficial pronouncements?

Jack, what part of "ontology" or Bell curve you don't understand? I suggest you bone up on your physics. That is, if you know where to start. Mathematics is a very large field and in it are discussed such things as "system theory", "chaos theory", Godel's "incompleteness" theorem.

Theology and physics are talking about two different things. Physics and the other sciences can provide insights into the nature of the universe for theological discussion.

Here is an example of a theorem that I touched on:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/19/160480.aspx

Baseless arrogance? All I asked for was no ranting. But that did not prevent you from engaging in a diatribe about "pseudo-intellectual drivel". Just because you are not acquainted with any area of endeavor and thought does not mean that it does not exist.

One other thing. You would not say "pseudo-intellectual drivel" to my face.

And yet one other thing. I said it was a theory. I'm always on the lookout for new data.

Gotta problem with the scientific approach?

So after making a bunch of baseless, substanceless posts, you resort to a threat? Nice reasoning.

I'm not sure you understand what the word ‘rant’ means, either. Describing the doctrine of original sin as ‘obscene and immoral’ is what we call an opinion. An opinion based on the notion that punishing someone for crimes they didn't commit is wrong.

You're welcome to debate that point, if you're able. I'd prefer that to the pointless posturing you've displayed so far.

Ryan, precisely who are you responding too, and for what? I believe the "rant" part was for me. The threat part I don't understand.

When I stated that both me-????? and you were mistaken, I meant that both of you were on the overall thrust of Christ's message of love, forgiveness and restraint.

When you get down to it, just take the best and leave the rest, okay?

Jack,

I understand where you are coming from ... the intelligent design crowd. My problem is that they are mainly tagential Christians. They don't take the Bible (or Torah, Koran, etc) verbatim becuase they believe in concept of a higher power to explain what they cannot .... ie. Big Bnng, life on earth, etc...

These are not the Christians which are the subject of this thread however. They mainly believe in an intelligent design, and a passive God. They would certainly not claim that the "creator" didn't believe in health care or abortion or homosexuality - that is illogical. If God didn't want people to have sex, why did he go out of his way to "create sex organs, chemical and physcial sex drives, and clearly in a portion of the population, the urge to have sex with their own sex ..... Now if you don't buy into the God part, its easy. We are Animals who evolved into different sexes since that allowed specialization and better chance at survival.

People's religious views are private .... I don't really care what you worship at home, at your church or temple, whatever .... but the move to politicize is my concern.

econ,

My experience with ID is worse than that. The people who prone ID do not in fact believe in ID. They are in fact creationists, hard and fast!

But they have recognized that they are now in a minority, at least where controlling schoolbooks and curricula is concerned. So they've moved to ID as a stopgap. They figure that if they can get ID into the schools, they will be able to shift that to real creationism.

In other words... "religious" people lying through their teeth about their beliefs... Cool, huh?

economics101, lets get this straight. I am not a Christian because I don't agree with the idea that God is hands on with the affairs of the world. I also have a big fat problem with the concept of "faith". That "intelligent design" I expounded on is radically different from the Christian fundamentalists and a hell of a lot more in line with science. Evolution, et al.

I noticed that Jack spends a third of his time attacking religion and/or theology. Jack, it is okay to be an athiest and know theology. (The full range of theology now, Jack)

Confucius made a sale here, if you know what I mean. ;-)

One other thing. You would not say "pseudo-intellectual drivel" to my face.

I took this to be a veiled threat toward Jack. If it isn't I apologise.

Everyone is born an atheist. What religion you follow or not depends on the culture you are brought up in. Nothing more.

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion [denominations, cults, sect's, whatever you call them] appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
-- George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

Jack, what part of "ontology" or Bell curve you don't understand?

You mean besides the fact that "bell curve" doesn't have a capitalized B? :-P

Mathematics is a very large field and in it are discussed such things as "system theory", "chaos theory", Godel's "incompleteness" theorem.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that, though I find it amusing that you presume to superficially lecture about physics to a person who holds a degree in it. We'll revisit this discussion when you decide to start bringing a modicum of substance to the table, instead of simply relying on spewing pseudo-intellectual jargon at every turn, hoping that your liberal use of buzzwords will dazzle your audience into idiocy.

I understand where you are coming from ... the intelligent design crowd

Well, Intelligent Design occupies a somewhat narrow ideological niche, and within it lie both creationists who started with an assumption of creation, and those who arrived at such a conclusion through what-have-you.

As such, I'm not particularly referring to the ID crowd, though they've certainly crafted an impressive PR campaign revolving around the notion that pseudo-scientific jargon will fool the masses into thinking their ideas have substance, much like Malcolm is doing here.

I would agree with you that the "observations leading to the God" crowd would typically not claim that God hates gays or God hates abortion, though. Such judgmental arrogance typically comes from the "God exists, period" crowd.

People's religious views are private .... I don't really care what you worship at home, at your church or temple, whatever .... but the move to politicize is my concern.

I completely agree. I don't give a s--- about anyone's religious views as long as they don't try to pass religion-based laws, including usurping scientific education for their own proselytization.

Jack, Malcolm.

Thats my point - believe in God, Buddha, little green men, be my guest..... but don't tell me that your god has a "plan" for how we should operate our soceity - especially a plan over which only you and your crew have knowledge of!

There is no religious argument against government provided health insurance. The claims that Jesus or his Dad are Capitalists or Americans is completely nonsensical, even when we use the highly politicized version of the Bible .... At best they "put up" with this kind of behavior as the "actions of men in a "fallen" world. There is no suggestion that they condoned suffering solely to profit others.

"bell curve" doesn't have a capitalized B

What?? Didn't the foundry originally belong to Alexander Graham?

Geez, I put out a theorem and I get personally attacked? Jack, you are being dishonest. This I will say to your face. What I brought up are issues that physicists are comtemplating. Petty attack on that capitalized "B". So many constants named after scientists are capitalized. It gets to be a habit. Forgot that it merely was descriptive. Whoopee.

Physicists are perplexed as to how neatly "balanced" the universe is. In computer models, a minute change in a constant makes the universe dysfunctional.

Get a life, Jack. Don't make statements that I believe "something". It is just a model. When new data surfaces, we deal with it. I don't mind you being an atheist at all.

economics101, remember what I said about "hands off"? We have to figure it out on our own. Scientific method is a good way to go about.

Geez, I put out a theorem and I get personally attacked?

Right, because you're definitely some victim here, since comment #1.66 wasn't one big personal attack. Oh, and by the way, you haven't "put out a theorem" yet.

Jack, you are being dishonest

I'd love to see you support that.

What I brought up are issues that physicists are comtemplating

Nah, you brought up buzzwords. You've yet to bring up a single concrete issue.

So many constants named after scientists are capitalized. It gets to be a habit

So you can't keep track of even the most basic components of your supposedly scientific knowledge. Oy vey, and you have the cheek to lecture anyone else about physics

Next thing we know, you'll be capitalizing "pi" -- after all, there was a book written about the guy's life.

It is just a model.

You've mentioned absolutely no models in your ramblings, merely judgmental admonitions that anyone who disagrees with you has inferior knowledge of physics, theology, and ontology.

Like I said, some substance would be nice, dear boy.

Get a life.

The topic is:

Religious Right Health Care Reform Is Against Gods Plan

Jack, as an atheist, unless you have studied theology, I believe you have no business here. If you cannot cite relevant theology in this forum, as I have done, stay on the porch, little doggy.

The topic is:

Religious Right Health Care Reform Is Against Gods Plan

Jack, as an atheist, unless you have studied theology, I believe you have no business here.

That's funny. I don't recall seeing a doorman when I entered this forum. Did you?

As for being on topic, well, you're the one who brought up the ontology of physics, pretending that it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

If you cannot cite relevant theology in this forum, as I have done

You've done that? Not in this subdiscussion, you haven't.

I fail to see how an atheist can participate, seeing that the atheist's position is one of negation, neither pro nor con on this issue.

One would have to say that the universe is God's creation. The how and why of it is open to discussion. Gotta problem with that?

You've done that? Not in this subdiscussion, you haven't.

Check out 22.5

Stay on the porch, doggy.

I fail to see how an atheist can participate, seeing that the atheist's position is one of negation, neither pro nor con on this issue.

Actually, an atheist can comment on what people claim to be God's plan, just like how a German can comment on the US Constitution, or how a creationist can comment on evolution. ;-)

Nice try at stifling dissent, but mere arrogance isn't going to keep your boat afloat.

One would have to say that the universe is God's creation. The how and why of it is open to discussion. Gotta problem with that?

Do you always personally believe in the foundations of every discussion you enter? By that argument, since you explicitly said that you aren't a Christian, your commentary becomes all but worthless as well, as the religious right is claiming things on behalf of only the Christian God.

Check out 22.5

Like I said: not in this subdiscussion, you haven't.

TheJonesGirl, the best that Jack can do is to say that the argument is irrelevant and to leave it at that. Anything beyond that by an atheist is a rant unless he cites theology. And he must cite whatever theological premise honestly.

If he can't do that, he has to stay on the porch.

Jack, are you trying to say that there is only one theological view as to how the universe was created? Specifically, the "religious right"?

That leaves out a whole bunch of theology.

Like I said: not in this subdiscussion, you haven't.

Cute, missed that "sub". But I did cite and made relevant comment on it at 22.5 Would it make you feel better if I directed a citation at you?

As the strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in any deity, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs, ranging from the moral universalism of humanism, which holds that a moral code should be applied consistently to all humans, to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless. George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God.

Methinks you are a nihilist.

Jack, are you trying to say that there is only one theological view as to how the universe was created? Specifically, the "religious right"?

Nope. I'm saying that the seed refers to only the religious right, and using your attempt at a "stay on topic" admonition, only commentary about their view is relevant. :-)

That leaves out a whole bunch of theology.

Of course it does. Pastafarianism isn't particularly relevant, though.

Methinks you are a nihilist.

As clearly evidenced above, you presume whatever suits your fancy, reality be damned. I find no reason to continue talking to you based on the presumption that rationality, as long as it disagrees with you, would have any effect whatsoever.

Jack,

the seed refers to only the religious right, and using your attempt at a "stay on topic" admonition, only commentary about their view is relevant.

So an apolitical Christian viewpoint is not allowed, heh? You are a comedian, you funny man. An atheist telling theologians and Christians as to what is relevant concerning the religious right's idea of God's position on healthcare and an indirect adviso to not comment on a Christian issue.

You still have not cotributed any Christian theological points of view as to the yay or nay of the issue.

Hypocrite.

So an apolitical Christian viewpoint is not allowed, heh

Of course it's allowed. I wasn't the one b----ing about how people with certain beliefs simply shouldn't talk. As I said above (reading comprehension, dear boy), I'm simply using your preferred tactic for attempting to shut down discussion.

An atheist telling theologians and Christians as to what is relevant concerning the religious right's idea of God's position on healthcare and an indirect adviso to not comment on a Christian issue.

That's funny. I could swear you said you weren't Christian, and from what you've said so far, you're a piss-poor excuse for a self-proclaimed theologian. As such, I'm not telling Christians or theologians anything.

Keep chasing your tail. At this point, I'm simply enabling your addiction to pomp for my own amusement.

As such, I'm not telling Christians or theologians anything.

So you are here to just rant. Thank you for admitting that. The question posed by the headline essentially demands that the question be answered within the context of Christian theology. A yes or a no.

As an atheist, can you answer the question? Wait a second, as far as you are concerned, God does not exist.

I might not be a Christian, but I definitely defend the right of a Christian to answer the question. A Christian has to answer it within the theology of Christianity. Or is that to simple for you?

Now be a good boy and recite the Nicean creed. Do it for Jesus.

Hoo ra.

So you are here to just rant. Thank you for admitting that.

Your English reading comprehension needs work. I hear Hooked on Phonics can do wonders.

The question posed by the headline essentially demands that the question be answered within the context of Christian theology.

The lack of a question mark in the title notwithstanding,

A yes or a no.

Sure. However, ask ten Christians what their theology is, and you'll get ten different answers, even assuming those Christians have read the Bible.

As such, your arbitrary limitations regarding a respondent's personal faith or theological education are just that: arbitrary.

As an atheist, can you answer the question? Wait a second, as far as you are concerned, God does not exist.

So only racists can comment on the KKK and only polytheists can comment on the Olympian myths? You're amusing, I'll give ya that.

I might not be a Christian, but I definitely defend the right of a Christian to answer the question.

Cute attempt at bastardizing Voltaire. Feel free to show me where I've tried to take away anyone's rights or shut down discussion. After all, I'd hate to think you're not only making irrelevant quips, not hypocritical ones. ;-)

A Christian has to answer it within the theology of Christianity. Or is that to simple for you?

Does that now mean a non-Christian doesn't have to answer it within Christian theology? Funny, I thought you were haranguing me about precisely that.

As such, I'm not telling Christians or theologians anything.

Then why are you here? Nothing you have said in this column has been an attempt to answer the question. I was in the process of doing so when you decided to argue about my take on physics and theology. I do have an argument that the answer would be "No" as to whether God has a position on healthcare from my agnostic viewpoint.

As an athiest, yes or no to the question. Then cease and desist your dishonest, off topic bull@!$%#.

Cute attempt at bastardizing Voltaire

Voltaire did not enter my mind. My words are my own.

Does that now mean a non-Christian doesn't have to answer it within Christian theology?

I did not say a thing about non-Christians. Your English reading comprehension skills needs work. I heard "Hooked on Phonics" can do wonders.

Sure. However, ask ten Christians what their theology is, and you'll get ten different answers, even assuming those Christians have read the Bible.

Of what good is this statement?

A Christian who is deeply familiar with Christian doctrine would most likely give a response that is in line with Christian doctrine. Whew! Verging on a tautalogy here. But Jack, it is quite obvious that you merely want to argue just for the sake of it. So from here on out, be on topic.

It's easy to be brave behind a keyboard, ain't it, Jack.

Then why are you here?

Hmmm, this healthcare plan will potentially affect US national policy, and the religious right, in their own insane manner, wields a great deal of influence over American politics. You didn't think that all Americans were Christians and/or theologians, did you?

Oh, and as for this particular subdiscussion, like I said before, I'm amusing myself by enabling your addiction to pomp.

I was in the process of doing so when you decided to argue about my take on physics and theology.

Interesting. Most people can answer a question within three comments. Apparently, you're not one of those people.

As an athiest, yes or no to the question.

Ah, sorry about the confusion: "sure" meant "yes."

Then cease and desist your dishonest, off topic bull@!$%#.

Like ontology of physics? Oh wait, no, that was your off-topic bulls---.

I did not say a thing about non-Christians

Right. You just try to order them around. I feel flattered that you pretend not to quote Voltaire, yet explicitly plagiarize me.

Of what good is this statement?

Simply pointing out that your monolithic treatment of "Christian theology" and "Christian doctrine" is about as meaningful as treating Americans as a politically monolithic group.

in line with Christian doctrine

Which one? I hope you're not so stupid as to actually believe that Christian doctrine is monolithic in the slightest.

I figured it out. You are slow. Not my job to get you up to speed. Sorry. Your inanities are just that, inane. Take the following:

I hope you're not so stupid as to actually believe that Christian doctrine is monolithic in the slightest.

Did I not say that I have a good grasp of theology? Let's see, we have Lutheranism, Protestantism, Calvinism, Catholicism, ad nauseum. Let alone Hinduism, animism, American Indian folklore, Australian Aboriginal folklore, Zoroastrianism, and yet again ad nauseum.

Gee wiz, I somehow met your expections. You get a brownie point.

yet explicitly plagiarize me.

You are quite right, but my grammar and punctuation is correct. To show the contrast between you and I.

Did I not say that I have a good grasp of theology?

You've yet to actually support such a claim. Naming a handful of arbitrary world religions and Christian sects constitutes a "good grasp of theology"? Apparently I had a "good grasp of theology" before I was 8. Gee willickers!

Now, when you stop pretending that Christian doctrine is monolithic in your actual claims, we might be getting somewhere.

Gee wiz, I somehow met your expections.

I don't particularly have any sort of "expections" for pompous blowhards, but if you'd to feel proud, go right ahead.

but my grammar and punctuation is correct. To show the contrast between you and I.

The irony still doesn't fail to amuse. ;-)

Where did this "pompous" crap come from? Like I said, it's easy to be brave behind a keyboard. Go troll somewhere else. If you had a question, I would have given you an honest, studied answer. But no, you went on a diatribe.

I invite all to peruse Jack's comments. Are they smarmy and off topic? After much ado, we finally get an answer:

Ah, sorry about the confusion: "sure" meant "yes."

An athiest stating that God has a position on healthcare.

'Nuff said.

Naming a handful of arbitrary world religions and Christian sects constitutes a "good grasp of theology"?

A better way of putting it would be:

Malcolm arbitrarily naming a handful of religions and Christian sects constitutes a "good grasp of theology"?

The word "world" is unnecessary. The ability to name a variety of religions, etc., would be somewhat indicative that the person doing such naming is at least somewhat knowledgable of theology.

But you are not willing to grant that. How big of you. You made a claim as to being a physicist. If you have noticed, I at least had the courtesy of not disputing that.

Courtesy goes a long way.

If you had a question, I would have given you an honest, studied answer.

Like the one about the ontology of physics? ;-)

Funny how you expect a simple yes or no from me, yet whine about "OMFG, you so totally interrupted my answer!" as an excuse for mindless shrillery. Of further amusement is the fact that you presume to say "athiest [sic]" with great condescension, yet presume yourself an agnostic, defined as a person who thinks it's impossible to know either way regarding God while pretending to have a worthy opinion on the matter at hand.

Like I said: amusing.

I invite all to peruse Jack's comments. Are they smarmy and off topic?

Yes, let's:

Stay on the porch, doggy.

Now be a good boy and recite the Nicean creed. Do it for Jesus.

It's easy to be brave behind a keyboard, ain't it, Jack.

Gee wiz, I somehow met your expections. You get a brownie point.

Oh, wait. Those weren't my comments. Oopsie.

An athiest stating that God has a position on healthcare.

Ah, I misunderstood what question you were referring to (seeing as how question marks did not avail themselves in that particular case).

Is healthcare reform against God's plan? Not according to basic Christian doctrine.

Does the religious right think it is? Apparently, yes.

Does the question posed by the headline essentially demand that the question be answered within the context of Christian theology? Sure. (that's the question I'd answered earlier)

'Nuff said.

Heh. Somehow I doubt you're one to keep your trap shut.

I will weigh in on this debate, in a more on-topic fashion this time ...

I agree that Christians being against the concept of universal healthcare is dubious, unless they're just worried about the potential side-effects of government intervention, which comes down to a more fundamental issue of how much do you trust your government? Some people equate increased government intervention with increased government power, which ultimately transmogrifies a Leninist "help thy neighbor" ideal into a Stalinist nightmare. I agree with this viewpoint in theory, but I also recognize that the government is not the only corruptible centralization of power. The private and public sectors are both corruptible or beneficial -- the key is not to become a semantic slave to terminologies like "capitalism" or "socialism" but to simply seek out balance and practical results that decentralize power as much as possible without allowing the system to completely fall apart. This is a prime tenet of designing robust systems in computing, and law is the "programming language" of society.

So while I respect the religious right's denunciation of governmental centralization of power, they neglect to realize that this corrupt tumor is forming just as readily in the private sector, and sometimes only the government is capable of breaking it up.

Capitalism is also limited in that it's only driving influence is money. While money can represent human mindshare to a large degree, as it is a reflection of time and energy, just like any conceptual token it can become too self-reflecting and disconnect from reality. The conceptual token of a reasoned political vote is another tool to advance human culture, and shouldn't be seen as secondary to money. Votes invest a trust of mindshare to a leader, similar to money, but with different results; for instance, money did not drive the moon landing, but it was one of the greatest human accomplishments of the 20th century.

Anyways, I could go on -- but won't, for now :-)

Oh and the above back and forth I might add is kinda funny. I think Jack (whom I've talked to before and thought was a reasonable and respectful individual) is on the winning side here, haha.

Wrong. Jack is just trolling.

I agree that Christians being against the concept of universal healthcare is dubious, unless they're just worried about the potential side-effects of government intervention, which comes down to a more fundamental issue of how much do you trust your government?

The New Testament's "give unto Caesar" line also makes a criticism against the Christian God having a say in government.

Some people equate increased government intervention with increased government power, which ultimately transmogrifies a Leninist "help thy neighbor" ideal into a Stalinist nightmare. I agree with this viewpoint in theory

I don't particularly agree with this viewpoint in theory. Quite naturally, it certainly can happen, noting examples of such transmogrification in world history. However, I take issue with the implied certainty of "ultimately transmogrifies [Lenin] into [Stalin]."

The process can certainly be, and has certainly been, tempered.

the key is not to become a semantic slave to terminologies like "capitalism" or "socialism" but to simply seek out balance and practical results that decentralize power as much as possible without allowing the system to completely fall apart.

Very well said.

So while I respect the religious right's denunciation of governmental centralization of power, they neglect to realize that this corrupt tumor is forming just as readily in the private sector, and sometimes only the government is capable of breaking it up.

Indeed, a free market can only even marginally coexist with basic human nature via (somewhat counterintuitively) regulation -- thus the need for government interventions like antitrust legislation and regulatory bodies. The concept of a free market is based on very strict prerequisites, none of which exist in concert in the real world, and certainly do not arise from natural human interaction.

Too bad we won't meet up in a dark alley, I'd @!$%# slap you and pimp your ass out in the street.

Ya know, Ireally can't say I've ever been threatened with wishful forced prostitution before. I somewhat feel honored that you would devote what was undoubtedly a relatively large amount of brainpower to crafting a rather colorfully esoteric version of "F--- you."

I wonder what the Marine Corps thinks of pimp wannabes. Ho... ra?

I think Jack (whom I've talked to before and thought was a reasonable and respectful individual) is on the winning side here

Heh, the above kerfuffle is clearly quite atypical for me. Sometimes I simply like to see just how foolish a person can make himself -- with my help, of course. ;-)

You finally got around to actually discuss the issue. About time.

There you go again about "brain power". You just can't help yourself, can you?

Define "brain power", nattering nabob of negativism. (Spiro Agnew)

Semper Fi, Mac. (Previously acquired knowledge, needed no brain power but recollection to use it. You talk the talk. Can you walk the walk? Any Marine would get a hard-on for you, Jack baby. This is a very testable thesis. Go up against any Marine and talk the same smack and see what it gets you.)

Hoo ra!

You finally got around to actually discuss the issue.

Yep, still waiting for you to catch up to the rest of us. Take your time.

Previously acquired knowledge

So you either have forced people into prostitution or know others who have? I'm confused as to why you consider that boastworthy.

Any Marine would get a hard-on for you, Jack baby

I guess "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is put to great use in the Marine Corps, eh?

Go up against any Marine

You represent "any Marine"? Sigh. I'd thought more highly of them.

From

Previously acquired knowledge

on down you took out of context and made misrepresentations.

Jack, you are a cheap date.

Jack, you are a cheap date.

Any Marine would get a hard-on for a cheap date? Keep raggin' on your pals, bub.

A squid maybe, but not a Marine. We are not into sloppy seconds.

Any Marine would get a hard-on for you, Jack baby.

Jack, you are a cheap date.

A squid maybe, but not a Marine

Hrm.

Obviously you can't handle it. You have to resort to cheap tricks and pull stuff out of context.

Hrm.

Obviously you can't handle it

Your hard-on? I'd rather not handle it, regardless of your apparently colorful fantasy life. I hope you won't take that personally. I abide by a general "no handling of Marine hard-ons" rule. :-)

You have to resort to cheap tricks

You're the one getting a self-proclaimed hard-on for a cheap date. ;-)

pull stuff out of context.

Ah yes, the ol' hat trick of directly quoting a complete sentence that was part of a rather creepy monologue of derogatory seduction. Ya got me there, ol' chum.

Jack

Comment was out of line and you 2 need to knock off the pissing contest an get back on topic. Believe it or not you can have your account suspended or banned for remarks like:

Your hard-on? I'd rather not handle it

Believe it or not you can have your account suspended or banned for remarks like:

Your hard-on? I'd rather not handle it

I rather doubt that. The CoH does not mandate an inordinate desire to fondle another Viner's genitals, and Malcolm was the one who broached the subject.

you 2 need to knock off the pissing contest an get back on topic

I did both in #1.111. The pissing contest is amusing, and the rest of this discussion has been dead for a while. If TJG indicates that she minds, I'll gladly end the pissing contest here.

If it is taken as a personnel attack and any of the Newsvine Admin read it that way you still can be. Anyway I tried and it's not my article. If the seeder wishes to let it pass then that is there right also.

"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live." [Thomas Jefferson]