So is the concept of HRC that the Christian Right has a problem with or just the current plan?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There is actually no Biblical or doctrinal basis for that position whatsoever. Jesus never objected taxing people to provide social services. Descriptions of early Christian communities in Acts say that those Christians lived communally, with no private ownership of property, so it sounds like Jesus was a collectivist to me. Youy might try to argue that Jesus wasn’t saying the government should impose that, but I would suggest that isn’t true, since he constantly spoke of these ideals of representing the “kingdom of God,” and the eventual government of the Messiah.

Isn’t that sort of the point? “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord” and all that? Let not my will, but thy will, be done? God isn’t bound by the same dictates Jesus relays for us; He can eventually show up to lay the smackdown on folks, but that in no way means people hereabouts are supposed to lay the smackdown on folks until then. If anything, he expresses the exact opposite sentiment when explaining that “if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”; the whole point is that God has a prerogative that mere mortals lack.

None of that empowers a Christian to so much as cast the first stone.

Jesus also preached monarchism, not democracy, so the will of the people was irrelevant to him. His political ideal was totalitarian, monarchic communism.

Well, yeah. So, absent such a monarchy, how should a Christian who finds himself in this or that democratic republic participate?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

With compassion and with an eye towards doing the most good with the power they have. Their government is of them, by them and for them. What do they think Jesus would want them to do with their government that they control.

Democratic participation in the government was not an option during the time of Jesus, so it’s not really fair to say we know what he would or would not have done with itm but I don’t think it’s likely he would have urged anyone NOT to use that power to relieve suffering and poverty.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Sampiro

Do you honestly think that they’re fine with being taxed themselves but it’s the fact other people are going to be taxed that bothers them?

No, I don’t. I’ve known rather a lot of self-described Christians who wouldn’t turn the other cheek if I smacked 'em upside the head, and who haven’t given their worldly goods to the poor, sure as they pray in public and marry divorced women and so on. I merely point out that faulting 'em for opposing this particular measure doesn’t involve that sort of inconsistency; they are, for once, not running afoul of any Jesus-cited dictate I’m aware of.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

No, I don’t. I’ve known rather a lot of self-described Christians who wouldn’t turn the other cheek if I smacked 'em upside the head, and who haven’t given their worldly goods to the poor, sure as they pray in public and marry divorced women and so on. I merely point out that faulting 'em for opposing this particular measure doesn’t involve that sort of inconsistency; they are, for once, not running afoul of any Jesus-cited dictate I’m aware of.

But supporting the measure would not contradict anything Jesus taught either, yet they act like it’s an affront to Christ.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

With compassion and with an eye towards doing the most good with the power they have.

Now, hold on a second, there; forget the “democratic participation in the government” aspect for a moment, and let’s make sure we agree about purely private action. Do you figure a Christian should do the most good with the power he has by, say, personally robbing from the rich and giving to the poor? Do you figure he can legitimately hire a hitman to kill somebody whose tremendous wealth will then go to charity?

Their government is of them, by them and for them. What do they think Jesus would want them to do with their government that they control.

I think Jesus would want them to judge not, and resist not evil, and forgive trespasses rather than casting stones, and thus and such; I think he puts that out there for individuals, and I don’t see that he carved out any exception for people acting in a group. Did he?

[Miller]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Well, that’s an odd way of putting it. Let’s see if we actually disagree on the big-picture issue; I answered your questions, perhaps you’ll answer mine in turn.

Imagine someone tells you he’s a Christian, whereupon I walk up and smite him on the cheek; as per Christian belief, should he smite me back or turn the other cheek? Imagine someone tells you he’s a Christian, whereupon a number of people ask him whether they should stone this here person who committed adultery; as per Christian belief, should he authorize that or tell 'em that only someone without sin should cast the first stone? Imagine someone tells you he’s a Christian, and then someone else asks whether he should forgive men their trespasses and judge not and – well, otherwise pretty much quotes Jesus directly, as it were, as per the OP; should that Christian reply by likewise quoting Jesus, or by advocating the exact opposite?

Right, see, you’re doing it again. Except now you’re talking about how I think Christians should act. How I think they should act doesn’t matter. How you think they should act doesn’t matter. What matters is, why do they think they should act the way they act? That’s not a question that can be answered by logical inference.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

But supporting the measure would not contradict anything Jesus taught either, yet they act like it’s an affront to Christ.

Supporting that measure involves forcing people to pay money they’d rather not part with. Wouldn’t doing that as a private citizen be an affront to God? Wouldn’t the same be true of personally hiring someone to do it on your behalf? So what changes when you do it as a voter?

I’m not aware of Jesus spelling out such an exception for group action; possibly you are. Cite?

[Blalron]

I simply can’t imagine Jesus joining a Tea Party protest.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Miller

Right, see, you’re doing it again. Except now you’re talking about how I think Christians should act. How I think they should act doesn’t matter. How you think they should act doesn’t matter. What matters is, why do they think they should act the way they act? That’s not a question that can be answered by logical inference.

Good heavens, man – you don’t think we can answer a question about whether a Christian should turn the other cheek when he’s smote on the cheek? You don’t think we can answer a question about where a Christian should stand on the tricky issue of casting the first stone? Really?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Now, hold on a second, there; forget the “democratic participation in the government” aspect for a moment, and let’s make sure we agree about purely private action. Do you figure a Christian should do the most good with the power he has by, say, personally robbing from the rich and giving to the poor? Do you figure he can legitimately hire a hitman to kill somebody whose tremendous wealth will then go to charity?

Who said anything about robbing anybody? We’re talking about taxes. Are you insinuating that all taxation is theft? Jesus didn’t think so. Jesus said pay your taxes. Jesus said that it was ok for the Roman Empire to tax poor people to pay for the Emperor’s anal lube, so why wouldn’t he think it was ok to tax rich people to give little kids some health care?

I think Jesus would want them to judge not, and resist not evil, and forgive trespasses rather than casting stones, and thus and such; I think he puts that out there for individuals, and I don’t see that he carved out any exception for people acting in a group. Did he?

I don’t understand what you’re asking here. It seems like a non-sequitur. What does “judging” and “forgiving” have to do with anything? What kind of group “exception” are you referring to?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Supporting that measure involves forcing people to pay money they’d rather not part with. Wouldn’t doing that as a private citizen be an affront to God?

What is your Biblical basis for this assumption? Do you think that any taxation at all is an affront to God? Jesus didn’t. Neither do anything of these right wing Christians. They’re all for taking people’s money to pay for wars and the death penalty and corporate welfare? What kind of taxation constitutes “robbery” and what does not?

I’m not aware of Jesus spelling out such an exception for group action; possibly you are. Cite?

I still don’t understand what you’re asking. What group action are you referring to? Collecting taxes? In that case, yes, Jesus supported it.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Who said anything about robbing anybody? We’re talking about taxes. Are you insinuating that all taxation is theft?

No, I’m not. I’m quite simply and straightforwardly asking you whether Jesus would be okay with an individual Christian, acting on his own as a private citizen, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. If you can answer that question, then I’ll gladly move on to the question of taxes – and then you’ll perhaps have some reason to attack a comparison between private theft and public taxation.

But we haven’t gotten there yet. Answer my question, and then I’ll gladly tell you how I think it links up to the question of taxation.

Jesus said pay your taxes. Jesus said that it was ok for the Roman Empire to tax poor people to pay for the Emperor’s anal lube, so why wouldn’t he think it was ok to tax rich people to give little kids some health care?

What an odd question. I’ve already said I think Jesus would be okay with paying one’s taxes once the law has been passed; whether for the Emperor’s anal lube or health care for little kids, it makes no difference. I just don’t see how that translates into okaying such a law in the first place, only to obeying it once it’s been passed.

I agree that a truly Christian taxpayer would pay a tax to set the Emperor up with anal lube. Do you agree that a truly Christian Emperor wouldn’t tax poor people to get anal lube?

I don’t understand what you’re asking here. It seems like a non-sequitur. What does “judging” and “forgiving” have to do with anything? What kind of group “exception” are you referring to?

Hmm. Well, let me spell out the counterfactual.

Imagine that Jesus told Christians to judge not, and forgive trespasses, and refrain from casting the first stone, and turn the other cheek, and resist not evil, and so on. And so an individual Christian then prepares to go out into the world: ready to turn the other cheek upon getting smacked upside the head, ready to refrain from casting the first stone, ready to forgive anyone who kicks him or robs him and so on, ready to give up on resisting evil or judging anybody even if folks are bent on nailing him to a piece of wood and sticking a spear in him.

So far, I hope, we’re on the same page: that’s exactly what Jesus says, right?

And now imagine that Jesus stops the guy to spell out a quick exception: “It’s okay to hit back, and refuse forgiveness, so long as you’re making that decision as part of a group. You can’t legitimately cast the first stone all by yourself; you can, however, decide to cast the first stone as long as you team up with a bunch of other people who think it’s a good idea. Resist not evil, unless you’re on the same team with people who likewise okay it. Judge not, lest ye be judged, unless twenty other guys agree with you.”

I figure that would be an exception. I figure that’s exactly what Jesus isn’t said to have spelled out; he simply and only told Christians to refrain from certain actions without then adding that it’s okay to engage in such actions under particular circumstances.

He didn’t say “turn the other cheek, unless the guy who hit you is bigger than you are.” He didn’t say “forgive men their trespasses, unless they’re older than you are.” He didn’t say “let he who is without sin cast the first stone, unless the target in question is already missing an eye”. He didn’t, as far as I know, spell out any such exceptions – not for group action, and not for anything else.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

No, I’m not. I’m quite simply and straightforwardly asking you whether Jesus would be okay with an individual Christian, acting on his own as a private citizen, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. If you can answer that question, then I’ll gladly move on to the question of taxes

You’ll have to explain the relevance of the question. It has no relationship to the thread topic that I can see. I have no idea what the answer would be. I’m not so sure he would NOT have supported it, though. He hated rich people.

and then you’ll perhaps have some reason to attack a comparison between private theft and public taxation.

This is gibberish. You first need to explain the relevance of your asinine question to the thread topic before you imperiously demand any answers to it. If you don’t actually want to talk about the thread topic, then I suggest you start another thread.

What an odd question. I’ve already said I think Jesus would be okay with paying one’s taxes once the law has been passed; whether for the Emperor’s anal lube or health care for little kids, it makes no difference. I just don’t see how that translates into okaying such a law in the first place, only to obeying it once it’s been passed.

The question is where does Jesus ever OPPOSE such a law.

I agree that a truly Christian taxpayer would pay a tax to set the Emperor up with anal lube. Do you agree that a truly Christian Emperor wouldn’t tax poor people to get anal lube?

I don’t know, but there’s nothing Jesus ever said that would forbid it.

Imagine that Jesus told Christians to judge not, and forgive trespasses, and refrain from casting the first stone, and turn the other cheek, and resist not evil, and so on. And so an individual Christian then prepares to go out into the world: ready to turn the other cheek upon getting smacked upside the head, ready to refrain from casting the first stone, ready to forgive anyone who kicks him or robs him and so on, ready to give up on resisting evil or judging anybody even if folks are bent on nailing him to a piece of wood and sticking a spear in him.

So far, I hope, we’re on the same page: that’s exactly what Jesus says, right?

And now imagine that Jesus stops the guy to spell out a quick exception: “It’s okay to hit back, and refuse forgiveness, so long as you’re making that decision as part of a group. You can’t legitimately cast the first stone all by yourself; you can, however, decide to cast the first stone as long as you team up with a bunch of other people who think it’s a good idea. Resist not evil, unless you’re on the same team with people who likewise okay it. Judge not, lest ye be judged, unless twenty other guys agree with you.”

I figure that would be an exception. I figure that’s exactly what Jesus isn’t said to have spelled out; he simply and only told Christians to refrain from certain actions without then adding that it’s okay to engage in such actions under particular circumstances.

He didn’t say “turn the other cheek, unless the guy who hit you is bigger than you are.” He didn’t say “forgive men their trespasses, unless they’re older than you are.” He didn’t say “let he who is without sin cast the first stone, unless the target in question is already missing an eye”. He didn’t, as far as I know, spell out any such exceptions – not for group action, and not for anything else.

This has fuck all to do with taxes. I have no idea why you keep on about it. I can’t even make any sense of it. I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about, or how it remotely relates to Health Care Reform. Could we stay on topic please?

[Miller]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Good heavens, man – you don’t think we can answer a question about whether a Christian should turn the other cheek when he’s smote on the cheek? You don’t think we can answer a question about where a Christian should stand on the tricky issue of casting the first stone? Really?

Of course we can. But that’s not the question in this thread. This thread isn’t about what Christians should do.

Look, you put together a nice little logical argument about why Christians should be opposed to UHC. The problem is, we don’t have any evidence that any actual Christians subscribe to that interpretation of the Bible. Given that virtually all Christians support some level of taxation, it seems unlikely that this is a particularly widespread belief. Either that, or Christians are engaged in widespread hypocrisy. Which, if I’m not mistaken, was the allegation you were originally seeking to dispute.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Miller

Either that, or Christians are engaged in widespread hypocrisy. Which, if I’m not mistaken, was the allegation you were originally seeking to dispute.

No, you’re mistaken; I believe they engage in widespread hypocrisy, and the OP is calling them out for one of the few times they’re actually doing something that doesn’t run afoul of a statement from Jesus.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

But they’re pretending that it WOULD run afoul to support the legislation. The question is how would it do so?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, I’m not. I’m quite simply and straightforwardly asking you whether Jesus would be okay with an individual Christian, acting on his own as a private citizen, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. If you can answer that question, then I’ll gladly move on to the question of taxes

You’ll have to explain the relevance of the question. It has no relationship to the thread topic that I can see. I have no idea what the answer would be. I’m not so sure he would NOT have supported it, though. He hated rich people.

See, to me, that’s a useful answer: even though you don’t see the relevance of my question, I’ve now learned something quite unexpected about your position in general and with regard to the OP in particular.

You say you have no idea what the answer would be, and you’re not so sure he wouldn’t have supported it. If that’s your view of Jesus, then I have no problem understanding why you feel the way you do about taxes.

I agree that a truly Christian taxpayer would pay a tax to set the Emperor up with anal lube. Do you agree that a truly Christian Emperor wouldn’t tax poor people to get anal lube?

I don’t know, but there’s nothing Jesus ever said that would forbid it.

Truly fascinating. I regret that you don’t see how the opposite viewpoint on this question would lead to an opposite answer to the OP, but I see how your answer relates to the OP; I believe Jesus had especially specific things to say about whether a Christian could be rich in general, and about whether a Christian could initiate the use of force against people to enrich himself further, but you don’t and your answer to the OP strikes me as sensible in light of that.

This has fuck all to do with taxes. I have no idea why you keep on about it. I can’t even make any sense of it. I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about, or how it remotely relates to Health Care Reform. Could we stay on topic please?

I feel it’s entirely on topic.

My point – which you can disagree with, but which strikes me as on-topic – is that, AFAICT, Jesus laid out no exceptions when handing down blanket pronouncements to Christians; for example, when he’d talk about turning the other cheek or forgiving trespasses, he then wouldn’t mention an unusual set of circumstances under which a Christian shouldn’t turn the other cheek or forgive trespasses. He laid out no exception for (a) Health Care Reform, or (b) anything else, really.

The relevance to the topic, thus, goes as follows: if Jesus forbade something, and then laid out no exception for Health Care Reform (or anything else, really), then such a blanket pronouncement remains in effect with regard to Health Care Reform; it remains in effect with regard to any subject.

Assume for the sake of argument that an individual Christian is forbidden from forcing a rich man to pay money to the poor. Assume for the sake of argument that no exception to that ban is laid out; no exception is provided for someone who acts as part of a group, no exception is provided for someone who acts in the context of HCR – no exception is laid out for anything, really. Would it then follow that an individual Christian is forbidden from forcing a rich man to pay money to the poor, even in the context of HCR and even while voting as part of a group?

Now, I realize you disagree with that first bit I’m asking you to assume for the sake of argument; never mind that now. If you ever-so-briefly do assume it for the sake of argument, then doesn’t the relevance become apparent?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

See, to me, that’s a useful answer: even though you don’t see the relevance of my question, I’ve now learned something quite unexpected about your position in general and with regard to the OP in particular.

You say you have no idea what the answer would be, and you’re not so sure he wouldn’t have supported it. If that’s your view of Jesus, then I have no problem understanding why you feel the way you do about taxes.

The question has nothing to do with taxes.

Truly fascinating. I regret that you don’t see how the opposite viewpoint on this question would lead to an opposite answer to the OP, but I see how your answer relates to the OP; I believe Jesus had especially specific things to say about whether a Christian could be rich in general, and about whether a Christian could initiate the use of force against people to enrich himself further, but you don’t and your answer to the OP strikes me as sensible in light of that.

Jesus said rich people couldn’t go to heaven. He did not make any exceptions. You are also changing the goalposts when you talk about "enriching one’s self. The question was whether Jesus would encourage recovering wealth from rich people to help poor people, not “to enrich one’s self.” As it happens, Jesus said nothing about either, and you are wrong if you think he did. I assure you, I know what I’m talking about.

I feel it’s entirely on topic.

My point – which you can disagree with, but which strikes me as on-topic – is that, AFAICT, Jesus laid out no exceptions when handing down blanket pronouncements to Christians; for example, when he’d talk about turning the other cheek or forgiving trespasses, he then wouldn’t mention an unusual set of circumstances under which a Christian shouldn’t turn the other cheek or forgive trespasses. He laid out no exception for (a) Health Care Reform, or (b) anything else, really.

The relevance to the topic, thus, goes as follows: if Jesus forbade something, and then laid out no exception for Health Care Reform (or anything else, really), then such a blanket pronouncement remains in effect with regard to Health Care Reform; it remains in effect with regard to any subject.

What edict from Jesus would Health Care Reform be an “exception” to? I’ll give you a hint – it’s nothing.

Assume for the sake of argument that an individual Christian is forbidden from forcing a rich man to pay money to the poor.

I will assume no such thing. There is no such prohibition from Jesus, and it’s ridiculous to compare this to taxes anyway.

Assume for the sake of argument that no exception to that ban is laid out; no exception is provided for someone who acts as part of a group, no exception is provided for someone who acts in the context of HCR – no exception is laid out for anything, really. Would it then follow that an individual Christian is forbidden from forcing a rich man to pay money to the poor, even in the context of HCR and even while voting as part of a group?

Now, I realize you disagree with that first bit I’m asking you to assume for the sake of argument; never mind that now. If you ever-so-briefly do assume it for the sake of argument, then doesn’t the relevance become apparent?

No. Your premise is baloney, first of all, and your attempt to compare taxes to theft just piles bullshit on top of baloney.

Jesus did not forbid the use of taxes to help the poor. That’s the bottom line. He didn’t say anything one way or the other about it because the whole idea would have been alien to him at the time. What we know of his feelings abut the rich and the poor, though, and his excoriation of the former, and his promise that the class order would be reversed can give us a pretty good idea how he would feel about it.

There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that would suggest that Jesus would OPPOSE the idea of taxing the rich to help the poor. Nothing whatsoever.

If you’re going to insist on your specious attempts to equate taxation with theft, could you please explain whether there is any taxation that Christians SHOULD support, and if so, how do you defend the exception and if not, how do you maintain any kind of structured society?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

But they’re pretending that it WOULD run afoul to support the legislation. The question is how would it do so?

It’s my belief – which you apparently reject – that Jesus, in speaking out against casting the first stone in between advocating that folks turn the other cheek and resist not evil while forgiving trespasses and judging not and all that stuff, was making it impossible for a Christian to forcibly take money away from someone who wanted to keep it; you can’t hit such folks back if they smite you, you can but forgive them while refusing to resist them sure as you can neither judge them nor cast a stone at them.

I therefore don’t see how a Christian could authorize a tax against someone; so long as Jesus laid out no exceptions – for HCR or anything else – a Christian can only ever agree to forgive people who refuse to pay that tax, sure as he can never judge such folks. He also can’t refuse to pay such a tax, but I don’t see that he can justifiedly require anybody else to do so.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The question has nothing to do with taxes.

It has everything to do with taxes! If you think Jesus would’ve been okay with a private individual doing it on his lonesome, then of course you think he would’ve been okay with a whole bunch of individuals doing it together.

Jesus said rich people couldn’t go to heaven. He did not make any exceptions.

I’m not disputing that. In fact, your claim right there strikes me as the first true non sequitur of the thread; it seems utterly unrelated to the OP.

You are also changing the goalposts when you talk about "enriching one’s self. The question was whether Jesus would encourage recovering wealth from rich people to help poor people, not “to enrich one’s self.”

Now that’s hardly fair; I was replying – with copy-and-paste, even! – to the point you brought up, about how “Jesus said pay your taxes. Jesus said that it was ok for the Roman Empire to tax poor people to pay for the Emperor’s anal lube”. Regardless of what that odd little idea has to do with moving the goalposts, I’m not the one who introduced it; I merely addressed it once you’d decided it was worth discussing.

Jesus did not forbid the use of taxes to help the poor. That’s the bottom line. He didn’t say anything one way or the other about it because the whole idea would have been alien to him at the time. What we know of his feelings abut the rich and the poor, though, and his excoriation of the former, and his promise that the class order would be reversed can give us a pretty good idea how he would feel about it. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that would suggest that Jesus would OPPOSE the idea. Nothing whatsoever.

You’re absolutely incorrect. Jesus told his followers to resist not evil; it was up to God to reverse the class order, he didn’t want Christians to go out and start making changes by force. Jesus further commanded his followers to not even think in those terms: "shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: ) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Judge not, that ye be not judged. "

It’s pretty danged straightforward: Christians aren’t supposed to judge people any more than they’re supposed to take thought of where their next meal is coming from tomorrow.

If you’re going to insist on your specious attempts to equate taxation with theft, could you please explain whether there is any taxation that Christians SHOULD support, and if so, how do you defend the exception and if not, how do you maintain any kind of structured society?

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”

Christians aren’t supposed to worry about maintaining any kind of structured society; they’re supposed to give no thought to the needs of tomorrow, in between forgiving trespasses even after turning the other cheek when getting smacked upside the head – because what’s paramount is refusing to judge people or resist evil and so on and so forth.