I was going to put this in the politics forum, but I decided to put it here and discuss the ethics and morality of a health care system.
To start off, I listen to a lot of talk radio in the car on the way to work and school. Depending on who's on, I'll either disagree or agree with the position. Everyone once in a while, though, they'll put on someone who doesn't usually work for the station that is, in my opinion, a complete and utter dumbass.
Yesterday, this one guy was trying to argue that health care was completely immoral and a non-Christian thing to do. His point was that with any health care system, you're placing a value on a human life. With any health care system, there a maximum amount of money that can be allocated to a person. So not only are you placing a value on their life, you're also trying to "play God" which is a sin!
Unfortunately, this guy did not allow people to call in (actually, every time there is a moron on this station, the moron doesn't allow people to call in. The smart people on the radio station have no problem with allowing callers to share their opinion). Now I would really like to just badmouth this guy and ask why morons are allowed on the radio, but I think we can be a little more philosophical and productive.
So instead, I'll ask a question that may open up some discussion. Are there any reasons why health care may actually be immoral? I personally think that health care is a moral thing to do, but maybe some people disagree. I'm sure there will be plenty of people in the middle who think it's neither moral or immoral, but there may be some people on a certain side...
Health care is not immoral
but then again as many would ask in this forum and have already asked in many thread
what is morality and what is it defined as
Has morality a universal definition or is it just a temporal and spatial thing that keeps chaging with mans needs values and tradition
Caring for someones health is not immoral under any definition of morality
For me there are two places where morality needs to be discussed. The one is on an individual basis where it is assumed that the individual is taking care of himself/herself, especially when they are part of a healthcare programme. Also, that they would use the healthcare programme sparingly and with care, therefore if they should get X amount of dollars allocated for tests in any one category, and only need a portion of the allocation, that it would be immoral to argue that "we're paying for it in taxes anyway". From the Government point of view, which is supposed to be representative of the people's wishes anyway, there is some morality in providing care for everyone. The part that makes it trickey is the resources available to do so, vs. the ideal of providing healthcare for everyone. This puts a great burden of "morality" on the Government, and it may become subject of interpretation. Especially since Government would have to make some value judgments in allowing certain treatments that may be deemed "excessive". When it gets to that point, the charges of immorality may have a factual basis, depending on the specific cases. It would become a matter of interpretation.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Yesterday, this one guy was trying to argue that health care was completely immoral and a non-Christian thing to do. His point was that with any health care system, you're placing a value on a human life. With any health care system, there a maximum amount of money that can be allocated to a person. So not only are you placing a value on their life, you're also trying to "play God" which is a sin! |
To the first point, the rebuttal is obvious: of course we're putting a value on human life... we're valuing it higher than whatever else the money would be spent on. The person who argues against universal health care is also putting a value on human life... they're valuing it as worth less than the rest of the economy.
The second part, about the "maximum amount of money", follows the same logic: yes, there's a maximum amount of money that can by allocated to saving a person which is:
- More than the zero you're allocating without any health care, and;
- Limited only by the rational concern that if you give more to one person you take it away from someone else.
i'm not sure how the "playing God" argument fits in there. i can't see any reason to relate God to either of his arguments except to point out that we wouldn't need health care or health care rationing if it weren't for God being a dick.
Ironically (in America at least), Jesus was wildly socialist. He spoke for paying taxes ("render unto Caesar"), and he encouraged (even demanded) surrendering wealth (the camel through the eye of the needle). There is no doubt that Jesus, if one uses his arguments in the NT, would certainly approve of universal health care. Even the OT God wouldn't object to it, with the caveat that it would only be applied to Jews.
Ah, but of course, there's no limit to how far cognitive dissonance can take you. | Indi wrote: |
Ironically (in America at least), Jesus was wildly socialist. He spoke for paying taxes ("render unto Caesar"), and he encouraged (even demanded) surrendering wealth (the camel through the eye of the needle). |
Mildly socialist, more like it.
He advocated paying taxes not for the benefit of the poor, but because the money belongs to the government to begin with.
The full quote:
| Quote: |
15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
|
And yes, he did advocate getting rid of your wealth, giving it to the poor... but where did he say the government should be involved in that? The most important part of it was that it should be voluntary, which means that your wealth no longer has power over you. | ocalhoun wrote: |
Mildly socialist, more like it.
He advocated paying taxes not for the benefit of the poor, but because the money belongs to the government to begin with. |
The only objection to Jesus being a socialist is that it's a secular government doing the collecting and redistribution, rather than the church or an individual, and Jesus would probably balk at any secular authority. i say that's splitting hairs. The idea is the same either way - whether it's God demanding tithing or the government demanding taxes. Either way, the money is being taken from the richest to help to the poorest. i say Jesus would be down with that wholeheartedly.
Furthermore, when the issue of the Pharisees - who represented Jewish authority at the time, so much as it could exist under Roman rule - asked about the law and demanding tithing (which is more or less taxation in Jewish law) came up, what did Jesus say about it? He said they should do it (before going on to condemn them for not following the other laws).
So what we have here is both sides of the proverbial coin. Jesus tells his followers to pay taxes. And Jesus tells the leaders to take taxes. So not only is taxation not un-Christian, Jesus was all for it.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| And yes, he did advocate getting rid of your wealth, giving it to the poor... but where did he say the government should be involved in that? The most important part of it was that it should be voluntary, which means that your wealth no longer has power over you. |
He most certainly did not say it was voluntary. It is required - so much so that you're probably going to hell if you don't give up your wealth. That seems pretty darn required to me. Just read what Jesus said leading up to the eye of the needle quote. (Matthew 19:16-21)
Yes, he didn't say that the government should be involved, but i don't see that that's relevant because he didn't say the government should not be involved. Coupled with his other teachings, it seems to me that if he were designing an Earthly government, he would definitely set up a socialist state. (Of course, he would also make it a theocracy, but that's not really relevant here.) | Indi wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | Mildly socialist, more like it.
He advocated paying taxes not for the benefit of the poor, but because the money belongs to the government to begin with. |
The only objection to Jesus being a socialist is that it's a secular government doing the collecting and redistribution, rather than the church or an individual, and Jesus would probably balk at any secular authority. i say that's splitting hairs. The idea is the same either way - whether it's God demanding tithing or the government demanding taxes. Either way, the money is being taken from the richest to help to the poorest. i say Jesus would be down with that wholeheartedly.
|
No, it's not.
Giving to God is optional, giving to the government is mandatory.
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | And yes, he did advocate getting rid of your wealth, giving it to the poor... but where did he say the government should be involved in that? The most important part of it was that it should be voluntary, which means that your wealth no longer has power over you. |
He most certainly did not say it was voluntary. It is required - so much so that you're probably going to hell if you don't give up your wealth. That seems pretty darn required to me. Just read what Jesus said leading up to the eye of the needle quote. (Matthew 19:16-21)
Yes, he didn't say that the government should be involved, but i don't see that that's relevant because he didn't say the government should not be involved. Coupled with his other teachings, it seems to me that if he were designing an Earthly government, he would definitely set up a socialist state. (Of course, he would also make it a theocracy, but that's not really relevant here.) |
There's one big difference here,
Jesus says "give your wealth to the poor or you're going to hell"
The government says "give your wealth to the poor (through us) or you're going to jail"
One is a threat that can be ignored, one is not. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Giving to God is optional, giving to the government is mandatory. |
By what logic? ^_^; Seriously, the penalty for not giving to the government is jail time. Woo hoo. The penalty for not giving to God is eternal suffering and torment in a lake of fire and brimstone.
... and the latter is optional?!?!?! ^_^;
| ocalhoun wrote: |
There's one big difference here,
Jesus says "give your wealth to the poor or you're going to hell"
The government says "give your wealth to the poor (through us) or you're going to jail"
One is a threat that can be ignored, one is not. |
Mm hm? So... jail is worse than Hell? ^_^; You can just ignore Jesus... THE SON OF GOD... threatening you with eternal torment and suffering in a lake of fire and brimstone... but you can't ignore the taxman threatening you with some soft jail time?
Doesn't anything about that strike you as... a little weird? ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
Mm hm? So... jail is worse than Hell? ^_^; You can just ignore Jesus... THE SON OF GOD... threatening you with eternal torment and suffering in a lake of fire and brimstone... but you can't ignore the taxman threatening you with some soft jail time?
|
Yes, if you don't believe in Hell, jail is worse than Hell.
But it doesn't matter if you believe in jail or not...
(And what is 'soft' jail time anyway? It might be a little soft now, but I'm sure it wasn't in those days.) | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Mm hm? So... jail is worse than Hell? ^_^; You can just ignore Jesus... THE SON OF GOD... threatening you with eternal torment and suffering in a lake of fire and brimstone... but you can't ignore the taxman threatening you with some soft jail time?
|
Yes, if you don't believe in Hell, jail is worse than Hell.
But it doesn't matter if you believe in jail or not...
(And what is 'soft' jail time anyway? It might be a little soft now, but I'm sure it wasn't in those days.) |
Er... i think you've lost track of the point here.
The point was that Jesus said that giving away your money to the poor is not in the least bit optional, under any circumstances... because if you don't you go to hell. And it doesn't really matter whether you believe in hell or not... Jesus certainly did. You are trying to pretend there is a difference between the government saying it and Jesus saying it because Jesus's threat can be ignored while the government's cannot. That is patent nonsense, and entirely beside the point. Jesus was a raging socialist - whether you believe in his beliefs doesn't change that anymore than disbelieving in Marx's claims would make him less of one.
Try to avoid mixing up your personal beliefs with Jesus's. Giving to God is optional in your belief system. It was certainly not optional to Jesus. He was quite clear, if you don't give to the poor, you will suffer eternal, horrible torment. That is not "optional". | Indi wrote: |
Try to avoid mixing up your personal beliefs with Jesus's. Giving to God is optional in your belief system. It was certainly not optional to Jesus. He was quite clear, if you don't give to the poor, you will suffer eternal, horrible torment. That is not "optional". |
It is optional, hence the word 'give'.
A government doesn't ask, or even tell you to give your money. They just take it.
There's also the difference of who's distributing it.Side note:
| Indi wrote: |
| He most certainly did not say it was voluntary. It is required - so much so that you're probably going to hell if you don't give up your wealth. That seems pretty darn required to me. Just read what Jesus said leading up to the eye of the needle quote. (Matthew 19:16-21) |
I read this passage and can't find anything about going to Hell:
| Quote: |
| 16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” |
For me the moral of that "story" is that one needs to be generous in spirit, which would include generosity of giving to others when you are wealthy. By giving your wealth away and serving others, you have a greater chance of happiness/heaven. It is a "lesson in life", more than a judgment and commandment. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Try to avoid mixing up your personal beliefs with Jesus's. Giving to God is optional in your belief system. It was certainly not optional to Jesus. He was quite clear, if you don't give to the poor, you will suffer eternal, horrible torment. That is not "optional". |
It is optional, hence the word 'give'.
A government doesn't ask, or even tell you to give your money. They just take it.
There's also the difference of who's distributing it. |
You're just making differences up. ^_^; They don't really exist.
How on earth does "give" make it optional? That's linguistically absurd: "GIVE ME YOUR MONEY OR I'LL KILL YOU!" Do you really think you have an option?
You can say "pay to the church" just as easily as "give to the church", and you can say "give your taxes" to the government just as easily as "pay your taxes". The only difference is convention.
Compare:
The government does not just take your money. They ask you for it. Of course, if you refuse, they come after you to take it from you.
God does not take your money (debatable, but, let's go with it). He asks you for it. Of course, if you refuse, you go to Hell.
And what is the difference in who is distributing it?
The government - their job is to make society the best it can be, but of course they sometimes do misguided and sometimes evil things. Or
The church - their job is to convert people to worship their god and make sure those who already do stick to the rules, but of course they sometimes do misguided and evil things.
| deanhills wrote: |
Side note:
| Indi wrote: | | He most certainly did not say it was voluntary. It is required - so much so that you're probably going to hell if you don't give up your wealth. That seems pretty darn required to me. Just read what Jesus said leading up to the eye of the needle quote. (Matthew 19:16-21) |
I read this passage and can't find anything about going to Hell:
| Quote: | | 16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” |
For me the moral of that "story" is that one needs to be generous in spirit, which would include generosity of giving to others when you are wealthy. By giving your wealth away and serving others, you have a greater chance of happiness/heaven. It is a "lesson in life", more than a judgment and commandment. |
Your analysis is based on wishful thinking, not what is actually written. (And, it is contradicted by Jesus's words shortly after that bit.) It says quite clearly that what the rich man lacks - the exact word used - is that he still needs to sell what he possesses and give it to the poor. Jesus is quite clear: give all of your possessions away, and follow Jesus (all of the bits in bold are exact quotes, with only corrections for grammar). Jesus makes no bones about it: a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. He doesn't say "a selfish man", he doesn't say "a greedy man", he says, specifically, a rich man. And he repeats it, four or five times! And when Peter says "we gave everything away and followed you", Jesus says explicitly... "then you're in! You're going to heaven."
Don't form opinions about what the Bible is saying based on excerpts or single verses. Read it.
And don't form opinions about what the Bible is saying based on what you think it should be saying. Read it. | Indi wrote: |
And what is the difference in who is distributing it?
The government - their job is to make society the best it can be, but of course they sometimes do misguided and sometimes evil things. Or
The church - their job is to convert people to worship their god and make sure those who already do stick to the rules, but of course they sometimes do misguided and evil things.
|
Wait, where did Jesus say the church would distribute it? Every time he mentions it, he seems to imply that you should give directly to the poor. And if the church is only converting, not helping the poor, then giving the church would actually go against this edict. | Indi wrote: |
Don't form opinions about what the Bible is saying based on excerpts or single verses. Read it.
And don't form opinions about what the Bible is saying based on what you think it should be saying. Read it. |
With respect Indi, is this not what you are doing as well? Given especially that the Bible is not a scientific text book and can be interpreted in many ways? I see it as something of spiritual guidance and I am happy with my non-literal opinions. You obviously see it differently, and look at it literally with scientific eyes. My way of looking is completely unscientific, as I cannot see the Bible as something of science. The St. Matthew chapter for me has a lot to do with faith, love, hope, words that may not feature anywhere in rigorous scientific testing. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
And what is the difference in who is distributing it?
The government - their job is to make society the best it can be, but of course they sometimes do misguided and sometimes evil things. Or
The church - their job is to convert people to worship their god and make sure those who already do stick to the rules, but of course they sometimes do misguided and evil things.
|
Wait, where did Jesus say the church would distribute it? Every time he mentions it, he seems to imply that you should give directly to the poor. And if the church is only converting, not helping the poor, then giving the church would actually go against this edict. |
i just picked "church" because it is a far more efficient mechanism of distributing your wealth to the poor that really need it than you ever will be by yourself.
But, if you insist, replace the "church" line with:
You - your job is to go out and share Jesus's message, and to stick to the rules, but of course you sometimes do misguided and sometimes evil things.
The bottom line is the same. Jesus said give it away (to the poor), or suffer horribly. That's not optional. The government says give it to us (so that we can maintain society for everyone), or suffer (slightly less horribly). Both demand your money, both promise suffering if you don't give it up, and in both cases the money you give up is supposed to help alleviate suffering.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | Don't form opinions about what the Bible is saying based on excerpts or single verses. Read it.
And don't form opinions about what the Bible is saying based on what you think it should be saying. Read it. |
With respect Indi, is this not what you are doing as well? Given especially that the Bible is not a scientific text book and can be interpreted in many ways? I see it as something of spiritual guidance and I am happy with my non-literal opinions. You obviously see it differently, and look at it literally with scientific eyes. My way of looking is completely unscientific, as I cannot see the Bible as something of science. The St. Matthew chapter for me has a lot to do with faith, love, hope, words that may not feature anywhere in rigorous scientific testing. |
Where the hell did science come into this?
No, i am not doing the same thing you are. i am not cherry picking verses from the Bible then applying my own interpretation to them. i am drawing from the entire body of Jesus's teachings, and taking them at face value. Yes, sometimes he spoke metaphorically and sometimes he spoke in parables, but he was always quite clear about when he was doing that. He was quite clear in this case - despite the waffling by modern Christians - that Christians are supposed to give up everything and "follow him" (ie, go and live according to the dictates of his teachings). He did not mean "be generous in spirit", he meant - quite literally - to walk out on your home, your family, everything, and live the life of a religious wanderer. He said so over and over, in a dozen different ways. My beliefs are irrelevant, as are yours - this is a simple matter of what Jesus actually said about the topic.
The problem with reading Jesus's words your way is that you are completely ignoring Jesus's words. You are using your own beliefs - which you had before and regardless of reading Jesus's words - and then trying to claim that Jesus's words somehow support them. It has nothing to do with "science" (and i have no idea why you would even bring it up). Jesus said what Jesus said. If you don't respect Jesus's words enough to actually care about what he really said - and you're just using him for the purpose of dropping his name as someone who agrees with your beliefs - then that's just dishonest, and disrespectful of Jesus.
It's as simple as this:
If you intend to use Jesus's words do justify your own beliefs, then use Jesus's words honestly.
If you intend to hold your own beliefs regardless of what Jesus said, then don't pretend that Jesus's words matter. | Indi wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
And what is the difference in who is distributing it?
The government - their job is to make society the best it can be, but of course they sometimes do misguided and sometimes evil things. Or
The church - their job is to convert people to worship their god and make sure those who already do stick to the rules, but of course they sometimes do misguided and evil things.
|
Wait, where did Jesus say the church would distribute it? Every time he mentions it, he seems to imply that you should give directly to the poor. And if the church is only converting, not helping the poor, then giving the church would actually go against this edict. |
i just picked "church" because it is a far more efficient mechanism of distributing your wealth to the poor that really need it than you ever will be by yourself.
But, if you insist, replace the "church" line with:
You - your job is to go out and share Jesus's message, and to stick to the rules, but of course you sometimes do misguided and sometimes evil things.
|
That is, perhaps, your job... But Jesus didn't say 'use your money to spread the message and stick to the rules'... he said 'give your money to the poor'.
That's a significant difference, hm?
Yes, he says to do these things, but the money (that which doesn't belong to Caesar) goes to the poor; you're expected to spread the message and stick to the rules without that money.
| Quote: |
The bottom line is the same. Jesus said give it away (to the poor), or suffer horribly. That's not optional. The government says give it to us (so that we can maintain society for everyone), or suffer (slightly less horribly). Both demand your money, both promise suffering if you don't give it up, and in both cases the money you give up is supposed to help alleviate suffering.
|
There's still one difference there:
Refuse to give the the church all your life, and even if you do go to hell, the church still doesn't get your money.
Refuse to give to the government, and once they jail you, they take the money, so the government gets it if you consent or not. | ocalhoun wrote: |
There's still one difference there:
Refuse to give the the church all your life, and even if you do go to hell, the church still doesn't get your money.
Refuse to give to the government, and once they jail you, they take the money, so the government gets it if you consent or not. |
There's also another difference in that you pay money out of your own consent when you give money to the poor. You really don't "pay" taxes to the government. You receive your paycheck from work and money is gone. I don't pay those taxes. They're taken from me... I mean sure, there are ways to get around it. You can be "self-employed" and then lie about your income... But let's face it, not everyone can be self-employed. There aren't enough opportunities and there are certain jobs that need to be done in society that cannot be done by one person which leads to corporations and businesses... So for most people, there's the difference in that you at least willingly give money to the poor but you unwillingly have money taken out of your paycheck by the government... | Indi wrote: |
| The problem with reading Jesus's words your way is that you are completely ignoring Jesus's words. You are using your own beliefs - which you had before and regardless of reading Jesus's words - and then trying to claim that Jesus's words somehow support them. It has nothing to do with "science" (and i have no idea why you would even bring it up). Jesus said what Jesus said. If you don't respect Jesus's words enough to actually care about what he really said - and you're just using him for the purpose of dropping his name as someone who agrees with your beliefs - then that's just dishonest, and disrespectful of Jesus. |
I believe the passage that I have been accused to be "cherry picking" was chosen by you, not me.
| Indi wrote: |
| He most certainly did not say it was voluntary. It is required - so much so that you're probably going to hell if you don't give up your wealth. That seems pretty darn required to me. Just read what Jesus said leading up to the eye of the needle quote. (Matthew 19:16-21) |
I would hate to be accused of cherry picking, as I don't like people cherry picking either. I don't see the sense of doing that.
I still have not seen any wording with regard to going to hell in the St. Matthew Verse that you suggested should be read as corroboration. | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | The problem with reading Jesus's words your way is that you are completely ignoring Jesus's words. You are using your own beliefs - which you had before and regardless of reading Jesus's words - and then trying to claim that Jesus's words somehow support them. It has nothing to do with "science" (and i have no idea why you would even bring it up). Jesus said what Jesus said. If you don't respect Jesus's words enough to actually care about what he really said - and you're just using him for the purpose of dropping his name as someone who agrees with your beliefs - then that's just dishonest, and disrespectful of Jesus. |
I believe the passage that I have been accused to be "cherry picking" was chosen by you, not me. |
It doesn't matter who picked the little snippet of Bible text. "Cherry-picking" means that when you have multiple options, you pick the best one(s) and ignore all the bad ones. The fact is that the meaning of that snippet of text, as it stands, is ambiguous. It could mean a lot of things. You have a lot of options for what you could choose from when interpreting the meaning of that text... and you have picked the one that works best with what you think it should say. (And, in doing so, you are ignoring what it actually literally says, and inventing a metaphorical interpretation that works.) That's cherry-picking.
If nothing else - given no reasons to do otherwise - the logical thing to do when interpreting the meaning of body of text is to take the literal meaning as its meaning. When you pick up a sheet of paper that says "don't stand on the red line because you will get hit by the train", you don't start interpreting metaphorical meanings for "red line" or "train", and start saying "hm, maybe this actually means that i shouldn't be an aggressive person, or my own aggression will be reflected on my be society and i will suffer for it". No, you look for the damn red line on the ground, and you get the hell off of it. Until you have a reason to believe that that text is metaphorical in nature, the logical thing to do is to take it literally.
Now, the text you quoted has a very clear meaning - it's right there in the actual words. But you have chosen to ignore that obvious meaning, the logical choice for interpretation, and instead choose a different meaning that's more in line with what you want it to mean. That's cherry-picking.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | He most certainly did not say it was voluntary. It is required - so much so that you're probably going to hell if you don't give up your wealth. That seems pretty darn required to me. Just read what Jesus said leading up to the eye of the needle quote. (Matthew 19:16-21) |
I would hate to be accused of cherry picking, as I don't like people cherry picking either. I don't see the sense of doing that.
I still have not seen any wording with regard to going to hell in the St. Matthew Verse that you suggested should be read as corroboration. |
That would be because i didn't suggest that those verses should be read as corroboration to answer your question (which you asked long after that quote), i suggested they be read to answer ocalhoun's. You simply took my answer to ocalhoun and asked why it didn't answer your very different question.
If you want the answer to your question - what Jesus really believed rich people should do with their money and other worldly possessions - i would suggest reading everything he said. He wasn't vague about it, and he repeated it over and over. But if you want a single, blatant example, there's the eye of the needle quote. | Indi wrote: |
| (And, in doing so, you are ignoring what it actually literally says, and inventing a metaphorical interpretation that works.) That's cherry-picking. |
That is exactly what you are guilty off Indi! I specifically asked you to point out where the word "hell" is to be found in the text that you quoted (to Ocalhoun) in support of your argument (as quoted below). Hell is not literally stated in the text you quoted. That was your interpretation of the text.
This was your argument to Ocalhoun:
| Indi wrote: |
| He most certainly did not say it was voluntary. It is required - so much so that you're probably going to hell if you don't give up your wealth. That seems pretty darn required to me. Just read what Jesus said leading up to the eye of the needle quote. (Matthew 19:16-21) |
I checked up the text you quoted and could not find anything along the lines of your interpretation, i.e. that if you do not do as Jesus says, that you will go to hell. | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | (And, in doing so, you are ignoring what it actually literally says, and inventing a metaphorical interpretation that works.) That's cherry-picking. |
That is exactly what you are guilty off Indi! I specifically asked you to point out where the word "hell" is to be found in the text that you quoted (to Ocalhoun) in support of your argument (as quoted below). Hell is not literally stated in the text you quoted. That was your interpretation of the text.
This was your argument to Ocalhoun:
| Indi wrote: | | He most certainly did not say it was voluntary. It is required - so much so that you're probably going to hell if you don't give up your wealth. That seems pretty darn required to me. Just read what Jesus said leading up to the eye of the needle quote. (Matthew 19:16-21) |
I checked up the text you quoted and could not find anything along the lines of your interpretation, i.e. that if you do not do as Jesus says, that you will go to hell. |
To repeat myself yet again:
The reason you don't see any mention of Hell in that passage is because I DID NOT QUOTE THAT PASSAGE IN REPLY TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT HELL. Is that clear now? There's no mention of Hell in there because i wasn't talking about Hell when i posted that passage. i wasn't even talking to you. i posted that piece in reply to ocalhoun, in response to an entirely different question. You hadn't even asked your question about Hell yet when i quoted that passage! How the hell do you think it could contain the answer to your question when it was posted before you asked your question? i am not psychic. You simply plucked that quote of mine out, stuck a totally different question in front of it, and are now pretending that i implied it was in some way related to your entirely unrelated question... and worse, accusing me of making things up because the answer to your question isn't in the passage you picked out.
And to repeat the answer i did give you yet again:
| Indi wrote: |
| i would suggest reading everything {Jesus} said. He wasn't vague about it, and he repeated it over and over. But if you want a single, blatant example, there's the eye of the needle quote. |
And lo. If you actually read the eye of the needle bit, there will be the answer. | Indi wrote: |
And lo. If you actually read the eye of the needle bit, there will be the answer. |
My question to you was regarding your claim about Jesus saying that if rich people do not give their money away that they will go to hell. I did not see "hell" mentioned in the text that you quoted to Ocalhoun, neither do I see "hell" mentioned in the eye of the needle quote:
| Quote: |
| Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24) |
Health care is essential in learned societies I dont think there is any morality or ethics involved here
it is the duty of every Human to care for others of his or her kind
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Health care is essential in learned societies I dont think there is any morality or ethics involved here
it is the duty of every Human to care for others of his or her kind |
Isn't the latter part of your statement, "it is a duty to care for others" a moral statement? | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
it is the duty of every Human to care for others of his or her kind |
But not of other kinds, hm?
That can get treacherous when you start thinking about the various definitions of 'kind' that could be used. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
it is the duty of every Human to care for others of his or her kind |
But not of other kinds, hm?
That can get treacherous when you start thinking about the various definitions of 'kind' that could be used. |
Ok Agreed correction to care of every one else and it is a duty beyond morals | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Ok Agreed correction to care of every one else and it is a duty beyond morals |
Think you have me confused here. How can a duty be beyond morals? | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
And lo. If you actually read the eye of the needle bit, there will be the answer. |
My question to you was regarding your claim about Jesus saying that if rich people do not give their money away that they will go to hell. I did not see "hell" mentioned in the text that you quoted to Ocalhoun, neither do I see "hell" mentioned in the eye of the needle quote:
| Quote: | | Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24) |
|
?
You do understand the fundamentals of the theology Jesus taught, right? You understand that, according to Jesus, there are only two options for where you're spending eternity, right? So if a rich man doesn't have a "camel through needle's eye" chance of getting into the kingdom of God, he is going to _____.
You can't get much clearer than that without saying it flat out. | Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
And lo. If you actually read the eye of the needle bit, there will be the answer. |
My question to you was regarding your claim about Jesus saying that if rich people do not give their money away that they will go to hell. I did not see "hell" mentioned in the text that you quoted to Ocalhoun, neither do I see "hell" mentioned in the eye of the needle quote:
| Quote: | | Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24) |
|
?
You do understand the fundamentals of the theology Jesus taught, right? You understand that, according to Jesus, there are only two options for where you're spending eternity, right? So if a rich man doesn't have a "camel through needle's eye" chance of getting into the kingdom of God, he is going to _____.
You can't get much clearer than that without saying it flat out. |
Indi, you asked me during the course of our discussions not to put any interpretation into the Bible and to keep it literal. No where in the text that you quoted is there any mention of "Hell" by Jesus. I can't even recall Jesus ever saying anyone was going to Hell. The only way going to Hell can feature, as you have just underlined in your response above, is to make your own interpretation that Jesus's theology was if you can't go to Heaven, you are automatically condemned to go to Hell. But that does not stand in any of the texts. You can't have it both ways. Either you look at what literally stands in the Bible, or you interpret what you think Jesus's theology was. In which case who says your interpretation is superior to any one else's that happens to be different to yours? | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi, you asked me during the course of our discussions not to put any interpretation into the Bible and to keep it literal. No where in the text that you quoted is there any mention of "Hell" by Jesus. I can't even recall Jesus ever saying anyone was going to Hell. The only way going to Hell can feature, as you have just underlined in your response above, is to make your own interpretation that Jesus's theology was if you can't go to Heaven, you are automatically condemned to go to Hell. But that does not stand in any of the texts. You can't have it both ways. Either you look at what literally stands in the Bible, or you interpret what you think Jesus's theology was. In which case who says your interpretation is superior to any one else's that happens to be different to yours? |
This isn't really my discussion, but I'd like to point out that Jesus did spend a considerable amount of time talking about Hell. It's been at least five years since I've read the Gospels, so I cannot tell you exactly where he talked about it. But I do remember him mentioning many things about Hell.
I'll actually just do a quick google search and see if anything pops up that I can just quote here since I don't actually know where to look in the Bible myself...
| Quote: |
Jesus speaks specifically of hell in Matthew 5:22:
"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' is in danger of the fire of hell."
Mar 9:43 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire;
Mar 9:44 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell;
Mar 9:46 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:47 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell;
Mar 9:48 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. |
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081117223939AAt66yD
Now, these might be "biased Christian answers based on biased Christian translations." I would not know. I do not have the education in this area to give a qualified answer. But, I did quote seven passages and so probably at least one of the them is legitimit. Although somebody else on the same page said:
| Quote: |
| You're right. Jesus didn't talk about "hell". He talked about "Gehenna" which was used a total of like...12 times I believe. Gehenna literally translates into the Valley of Hinnom. A rubbish dump just outside of Jerusalem where trash was burned along with the corpses of animals and criminals. |
Although... Somebody then posted, shortly below it, some more examples"
| Quote: |
1. Matthew 18:8
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
Matthew 18:7-9 (in Context) Matthew 18 (Whole Chapter)
2. Matthew 25:41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Matthew 25:40-42 (in Context) Matthew 25 (Whole Chapter)
3. Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1:6-8 (in Context) Jude 1 (Whole Chapter) |
So I'm not sure how the translations work but it looks like there are some mentions of Jesus talking about Hell (both in the Gospels and the book of Jude).... | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Quote: | Jesus speaks specifically of hell in Matthew 5:22:
"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' is in danger of the fire of hell."
Mar 9:43 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire;
Mar 9:44 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell;
Mar 9:46 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:47 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell;
Mar 9:48 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. |
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081117223939AAt66yD
Now, these might be "biased Christian answers based on biased Christian translations." I would not know. I do not have the education in this area to give a qualified answer. |
Thanks Matrix, I stand corrected. Thanks for taking the trouble of doing the searches. Guess we will need to think twice before we call someone a "fool". 
It goes with quite a powerful and fiery punishment. Have to be honest with you however, I've never done well with dahmnations and severe judgments like these. Sort of does not make sense either. When you read about a lady who has been sleeping around, and is regarded a sinner, and she gets the "A" OK in the story, and someone calls someone a fool, and they get to go to hell. | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
And lo. If you actually read the eye of the needle bit, there will be the answer. |
My question to you was regarding your claim about Jesus saying that if rich people do not give their money away that they will go to hell. I did not see "hell" mentioned in the text that you quoted to Ocalhoun, neither do I see "hell" mentioned in the eye of the needle quote:
| Quote: | | Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24) |
|
?
You do understand the fundamentals of the theology Jesus taught, right? You understand that, according to Jesus, there are only two options for where you're spending eternity, right? So if a rich man doesn't have a "camel through needle's eye" chance of getting into the kingdom of God, he is going to _____.
You can't get much clearer than that without saying it flat out. |
Indi, you asked me during the course of our discussions not to put any interpretation into the Bible and to keep it literal. No where in the text that you quoted is there any mention of "Hell" by Jesus. I can't even recall Jesus ever saying anyone was going to Hell. The only way going to Hell can feature, as you have just underlined in your response above, is to make your own interpretation that Jesus's theology was if you can't go to Heaven, you are automatically condemned to go to Hell. But that does not stand in any of the texts. You can't have it both ways. Either you look at what literally stands in the Bible, or you interpret what you think Jesus's theology was. In which case who says your interpretation is superior to any one else's that happens to be different to yours? |
?
Didn't i just explain this? Was it not clear enough? In Jesus's theology there are only two ultimate endings: the Kingdom, or Hell. So if rich man cannot easily enter the Kingdom, he is most likely going to ____. This isn't rocket science.
Or do you doubt that Jesus's theology has that only-one-or-the-other ending? If so, you're on your own. i supplied what you asked for: the clear cut evidence that Jesus said rich people are probably going to Hell. If you don't know about the Heaven/Hell thing in Jesus's teachings, then you don't understand anything about Jesus's teachings at all because that is one of the most basic precepts. i'm not going to spoon feed it to you. i mean, what next, am i going to have to textually justify that Jesus believed there was only a single god? Am i going to have to textually justify that Jesus has authority on where you go when you die? Or that the Kingdom of Heaven is a nice place and Hell is bad? Come on. We could be here forever, and you'd just be wasting my time.
Because if you're that clueless about Christianity, then i can't help you with a single verse or two. These are fundamental things. You're going to have to start from scratch. Read everything Jesus taught - it's all in there, literally, in the text. It has nothing to do with "my interpretation", it's right there in his teachings. Go see for yourself.
But i supplied the evidence that Jesus says most rich people are going to end up in Hell. If you lack the understanding of Christianity to appreciate that that was what he was saying, you're on your own.The dixcusion is going well but is it right to mix religion with ethics
