Health Care for America Now

Andre,

2 things:

Regarding time in scripture: Sometimes its literal, sometimes relative or figurative... as in eternity vs mortality.... we measure our lives in seconds, minutes, days, months, years...... yet for each one of us, life is like a vapor: here today and tomorrow gone. In this instance it is not the eternity of the soul but of the body. With God, everything is settled as though it already is..... even that which is yet to come, because God has full power and knowledge in all the demensions..... but for us, life is experienced in past, present and future tense.

Second, Jesus told his disciples that there was some that would not taste death before seeing the Son come in all his glory........ and, guess what: John, his disciple, saw the Revelation and recorded it before his death..... in essence, he saw the Lord and his kingdom. That kingdom is wholly different from this present government of man which is led by the god of this world.....the devil.

 

I never suggested you were calling me a minion of the devil. That remark of mine was directed at one of the fluffy lightweights who occasionally insert denigrating remarks and offer no substance.

As to your demonstrating "my errors", I leave it to the reader to judge that. This has been a good thread in that we are discussing (some of us, anyway) foundational issues of scripture.

The wise reader will weigh the merits of the arguments and see how they hold up in the light of the scriptures - s/he will not (or should not) be infuenced my mere claims (by anyone, including me) to have undermined the arguments of the other.

The arguments are what they are and should be objectively evaluated by the interested reader.

 

A follow-on. I had posted this:

To which you responded with this:

It is clear that the person who makes the Acs 4 prayer is quoting from Psalm 2. So in context, it is clear that the person praying in Acts 4 sees Jesus as the "annointed one". In fact, this very thing is asserted in a follow-on statement from that same prayer in Acts 4:

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people[e] of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.

So there is no doubt at all - the person praying in Acts 4 sees Jesus as being the "annointed one" that is referred to in Psalm 2. Do you dispute this? And what is said of this same annointed one in Psalm 2? That he has been installed as King. The obvious conclusion - the person making the Acts 4 prayer sees Jesus as presently being King.

Your counter-argument seems to be that this cannot be so because the statement about being King is set in time 900 years earlier, so how could that King be Jesus - some other, earlier king must be the subject of the statement.

Even if there were such a king - even if you can name the specific King that David is referring to - this is entirely beside the point. The point is that the person praying in Acts 4 sees Jesus as that King (perhaps as in one of those "double-edged" prophecies).

The fact that the statement "I have installed my King" is in the past tense, of course, does not mean it cannot be prophetic about Jesus, because of Old Testament texts like these, expressed in the past tense, but clearly about Jesus:

Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;

So apart from any of the many other scriptures, this one from Acts 4, properly interpreted in context of the Old Testament prophecies, shows that Jesus was installed as King 2000 years ago.

 

How about actually substantiating this accusation. Give the reader something to make him / her believe that I do not take scripture seriously. I suggest that my expansive use of scripture suggests that I very much take it seriously - when have I ever not treated it with reverence? Or am I not reverent because my interpretation does not line up with yours?

If you disagree with my interpretation, why not make an actual case?

And as for deserving "banishment", I know a poster who has called another poster a "liar" and "a creep".

Now, prithee, who do you suppose that first poster is?

 

If Mr. Wright's views are incorrect, how about ceasing the sideline participation and giving us your own scriptural case. Why let Pastor Larry carry the load alone?

 

PL can spend all the time on this he wants. I don't have the energy to explain why the sky is not pink anymore than I do to deal with your mess.

 

Well, then, forget all the scriptures I have provided. Why not specifically address post number 164? I claim that this post alone establishes that Jesus has been installed as King.

Do you agree with my argument? Perhaps you agree with it but think it irrelevant to the universal health care issue. Well, then, please make your argument.

If I am wrong in reading Acts 4 and Psalm 2 the way I do, surrely you have time to deal with that single post.

 

Here is part of the problem: You will use texts in any way you desire without reference to the point of them. This proves it. You are citing a text that shows the king was anointed 900 years before Jesus, and claiming it proves Jesus began his reign 2000 ago. That makes no sense for several reasons.

1. If the text shows Jesus being anointed 900 years before he became king, then it is certainly not inconsistent to see another 2000 years in there, particuarly in light of the overwhelming evidence. Your citation of Psa 2 completely undermines your whole argument.

2. The pattern of the OT (that you like to appeal to) clearly shows that anointing and reigning do not happen at the same time. Both David and Saul were anointed as kings long before they began to reign.

3. Psa 2 is actually a coronation psalm that would apply to all the DAvidic kings, with a final view toward the Messiah.

So the reality is that Psalm 2 doesn't help you. It hurts you.

As I pointed out, being anointed as king is the same as being installed. Again, just refer to the OT.

Yes indeed.

Before spouting off about tenses, it would be helpful to learn some about ancient language and particularly verbal aspect. It is not like our modern tenses.

I think I have shown that to be false.

You are still not dealing with the relevant Scriptures. You are picking and choosng certain ones and ignoring others. Thus, it is giving you an incomplete picture.

 

I would like to return to the thinking that undergirds the view of someone who does not believe that universal health is specifically to be advocated for by the Christian.

Did Jesus teach the principle that his followers should care for needs of "the least of these"? I suspect that no one will dispute this, regardless of issues about if and when Jesus becomes "king".

Now what does it really mean for a Christain Fred to oppose universal health care? It means that Fred believes these the teachings of Jesus about the "least of these" do not apply to the domain of how we order and strucure our society. They only apply to how Fred acts as an individual.

A little thinking reveals that this is an entirely odd and unworkable state of affairs. What kind of a person will hold a set of values A to order his personal behaviour and yet hold an entirely different set of values B in respect to how to order society?

If it is fundamentallyy good for the individual to manifest care for the least of these, it is also fundamentally good for society to do so as well. The value is not context-dependent -it is true at both the individual level as well as at the societal level. Caring for others is not a "private" act - it is a decidedly corporate act. So why not enshrine this value in the institutions that implement our corporateness - the institutions of government?

Imagine how silly it would be to proclaim oneself to be a pacifist personally and yet promote the enshrinment of militarism in the institutions of government.

Or imagine how silly it would be to be environmentally responsible as an individual and yet vote for government policies that harm the environment (when other factors do not force one into such a position)

The only argument against universal health care that has any credibility at all is that it will not work practically. And I indeed have sympathies with those who might say "look, we agree with the principle of universal health care, but governments are hopelessly inefficient and the principle of love really argues against wasting money this way"

While I entirely understand this position, I suggest that the better solution is to not abandon our societal approach to health care to the secularist, but rather figure out a way to make it work.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
I will ask you the same question I asked carpro.

I have provided Scriptures and made claims about what they mean. I have not appealed to rhetoric. I have responded to those who indeed are serious about this discussion (e.g. Pastor Larry).

If my position is unscriptural, why are you not demonstrating it to be unscriptural? Why the name-calling? Why not make your point with the scriptures?

Good decision.

Just as it would be a waste of time to debate scripture with Satan himself, it is a waste of time to debate it with one whose motivation is self justification for any thing they desire.

 

Let's look at Psalm 2 in more detail. I trust that it is clear to all that Jesus is indeed the annointed one referred to in Psalm 2. PL's argument is that Jesus annointing reigning are separated in time. Let's see whether Psalm 2 supports such a position:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."

7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, "You are my Son [d] ;
today I have become your Father. [e]
8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter [f] ;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery." 10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

Presumably we all agree that Jesus will be installed as King at some point. I believe this has already happened. PL appears to believe that it has yet to happen.

Who is the "you" in verse 7? Clearly it is Jesus. Who is ruling with an iron scepter? Again, clearly Jesus.

Now lets look at verses 9 and 10 together:

1. If Jesus is already installed, then these verses refer to the kingship of Jesus in the present. Rulers are being warned that nations may be destroyed.

2. If Jesus is yet to be installed, this warning can only to the post-installment period when Jesus is installed. If PL is correct, verses 9 and 10 are warning about the state of affairs after Jesus returns.

I doubt very much that view 2 can work in light of numerous texts like the following which show that there really will be no need for such corrective rebuke in the new world to come:

"Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

How can we have the healing of the nations during a kingship where the nations are being threatened with the possibility of being dashed to pieces? In this regard, note that the "them" in verse 9 of Psalm 2 is a reference to nations.

I think this is a compelling argument that Jesus has already been installed. Placing his installation as King after his return really cannot be reconciled with Scriptural teachings about what that future world will be like.

 

If you have concerns about posts you report it by clicking on the yellow triangle in the top right hand corner of the post you have concerns about.

 

Clearly this thread has been hi-jacked and dominated by the opinions of a single poster who insists that other posters dialogue with him on his own terms....

Well Andre, I try not to judge..... but you're <deleted LE>, off subject, and tying up bandwidth, and, clearly, you don't know scripture or you would recognize the content of other posters which reflect a scriptual position or passage, even if different from your own.

And, no....... I'm not always 'nice'.

 

So why didn't Jesus advocate universal health care? As I have pointed out several times (and you have ignored each time), Jesus didn't even heal everyone and he actually had the power to.

It is the Davidic ruler.

Unless you take the text for what it says and understand it to be about the Davidic ruler. But even at that, Jesus is not now breaking nation with a rod of iron and shattering them like earthenware. All we need do is look around and see it isn't happening. And that is my point ... When you look at what the Bible says about the kingdom, it simply isn't here nwo.

You are confusing the eternal state with the kingdom of God on earth. The verse you cite is about the eternal state. We are talking about the millennial kingdom.

I don't think this argument is even coherent, much less compelling. it simply cannot deal with the scriptural evidence.

 

US fails to measure up on human index.

An interesting report in a British news paper, it makes for some quite interesting reading with regard to this debate.

The report, Measure of America, was funded by Oxfam America, the Conrad Hilton Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/17/internationalaidanddevelopment.usa


"Despite spending $230m (£115m) an hour on healthcare, Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other developed country. And while it has the second-highest income per head in the world, the United States ranks 42nd in terms of life expectancy.

These are some of the startling conclusions from a major new report which attempts to explain why the world's number-one economy has slipped to 12th place - from 2nd in 1990- in terms of human development."

"One of the main problems faced by the US, says the report, is that one in six Americans, or about 47 million people, are not covered by health insurance and so have limited access to healthcare."

"As a result, the US is ranked 42nd in global life expectancy and 34th in terms of infants surviving to age one. The US infant mortality rate is on a par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia and Poland. If the US could match top-ranked Sweden, about 20,000 more American babies a year would live to their first birthday"

"The US has a higher percentage of children living in poverty than any of the world's richest countries. "

"Some Americans are living anywhere from 30 to 50 years behind others when it comes to issues we all care about: health, education and standard of living".

 

U.S. life expectancy is beyond 78 years. So, while US life expectancy may not equal that of some other countries, it continues to increase every time it is measured.

"Part of the reason U.S. infant mortality is rising in comparison to other countries is because while the U.S. rate has remained fairly stable, many other countries have greatly improved their health care systems." LINK

In other words, everyone else is catching up, due to improved nutrition, public hygiene, and vaccination programs.

Also -

"One of the main reasons is that [US] women are putting off having babies until they are older. .. If a women put off having a baby until they are 30 or 40 (or more) there will be more babies with birth defects and complications." LINK

 

This thread is closed. LE