geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll wait. The ACA is the government's Corvair.

The Corvair was in production for 10 years, sold nearly 2,000,000 vehicles, and for a time, was one of the most popular cars sold in the United States. You may be right Doctor, but the ACA could also be a complete failure. We're going to have to wait and see, I guess.

And, it tended to explode. #ralphnadergotoneright

danivon wrote:I was asking for DF's evidence for his assertion - which was essentially telling freeman that his stated reason for being an atheist was a lie and that DF knows freeman's mind better than freeman does. Not seen that, of course.

The guy who brought up religion and compassion was John Kasich. freeman made it very clear that he did not see religion (or lack of) as the basis to support his position, or even Kasich's, but that he did agree with the Republican Governor of Ohio that compassion for the poor is important.

Quite why DF felt the need to make a personal remarks about freeman's beliefs (which are not religion) or the reasons for them I don't know. Showing off his 'mindreading' trick again I guess.

Nope, and now you're trying to read my mind.

It's pretty simple: I would not have cared if Freeman didn't feel the need to put his areligious opinion into what was otherwise innocuous.

But hey, what would we non-believers understand about the teachings of Christ, a man who went around healing the sick (and not asking for payment), criticized the rich, helped the poor, said things like:

And, this is YOUR opinion. If you really want to go there, standby.

"Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys." (Luke 12 33)

Was this a generic command or was it in regard to one man who claimed to have obeyed the commandments perfectly?

"When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." (Luke 14 12-14)

Does this apply to the government or is it about how the rich should treat the poor voluntarily? If the latter, it is a fine instruction. If the former, then you don't understand the context.

The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19 20)

This is the rich young ruler. Review what I said above.

" Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabbath. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. " (James 5 1-6)

I agree entirely. Again, is this about individuals or the government? Is it a sweeping condemnation of riches, or a sweeping condemnation of greed?

" "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on His left.
Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite you in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'
Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
Then they themselves will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 31-46)

Do you mean to say that Jesus taught eternal life is available to the rich if they do these things? Is that His point? Or, was He saying that failing to do these things reveals the true condition of your heart?

Now these seem fairly easy to understand, as with some of the Old Testament stuff like Deuteronomy 15 7 and 26 12, Proverbs 31, Isiah 58 66....

OT was a theocracy--the Law of God was the Law of the land. I'm sure you'd like to see that reinstated.

Now, I'm sure we can argue all day about the basis for Christianity as a belief system, but that was not really what freeman was talking about.

^mindreading.

He actually said, "Of course, I am an atheist and I am an atheist because there is no convincing evidence that God exists." That is an attack on "the basis for Christianity."

fate

OT was a theocracy--the Law of God was the Law of the land. I'm sure you'd like to see that reinstated.

What do you mean OT? Israel?
If so, it was only a theocracy in its earliest form when it was ruled by judges. For most of history it was a monarchy.

Bbauska - how was your post in reply to the words of mine you quoted?

geojanes wrote:I had heard that the individual mandate was a Heritage Foundation idea hatched to combat HillaryCare, but I didn't know the whole story. It's pretty interesting how things have completely flipped on this issue. 20 years ago you couldn't get a leftist to give the idea the time of day. Maybe because it was the conservative solution? Interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html?_r=0

Fair and balanced.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 52951140/1

The intro:

Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

#memebuster

rickyp wrote:fate

OT was a theocracy--the Law of God was the Law of the land. I'm sure you'd like to see that reinstated.

What do you mean OT? Israel?
If so, it was only a theocracy in its earliest form when it was ruled by judges. For most of history it was a monarchy.

Fine, o scholar of Israel: when was the Law done away with?

And, to the heart of the issue: would you like to see the Law of Moses be the Law of the US?

Well, I made two points: (1) there is no convincing evidence for the existence of God (Christian or otherwise), and (2) an implicit point that Christians were not living up to their founder's precepts by belonging to a party that does not help the poor. So, I can't complaint too much when the devout Christians here get upset at me for daring to express those opinions. I wouldn't mind a debate in a separate forum about the proof of the Christian religion, I think it might be instructive, but there is no need to go into it here. And if DF wants to read my mind about my motives in not believing in the existence of God--that's fine, it doesn't bother me. It says more about him then it says about me.

I will say that DF might be right in a way, I don't even like the Christian religion much, even apart from the proof problems. The emphasis on helping the poor and others (which most Christians simply ignore with a variety of excuses)is probably the best part about the religion; the emphasis on how bad man is I find to be very misplaced. There is this Christian radio station that I listen to that for some reason amuses me and they just go on ad nauseum that anything that man does that is good is due to God while everything bad is due to man Then there are the end of times programs. Man is terrible and judgment day is coming soon--give me a break.
Finally, I find the whole idea of worship of a deity to be contrary to being an adult. Ok, you created me. Thanks. (if that is the case, which is extremely doubtful). But to bow down to a supreme being so that I can get everlasting life--I would like to think a supreme, perfect being would be above that. The reason that faith is so important for the Christian religion, instead of just being a good person, is that, well, there is this problem of proof. So, yeah, even if there is a supreme being I am not going, in order to live forever in some kind of existence that is not really explained, I have to say how bad I am, and great he is now and forever. No thanks.
You would have thought by now in the 21st Century that people would accept the only reasonable explanation is that this is all there is. But apparently mankind just cannot accept the reality of death. Just can't. I would not be religious even on the basis of Pascal's Wager. This is my life, i will lead it the best way I know how and that is it. And, yes, I will grow old (hopefully), I will become infirm, I will lose my physical and mental capabilities, and then I will die and all my friends and my family will have the same fate. And that sucks--but that's reality. All the other stuff is just tooth-fairy stuff. And while Will Durant may have been right in saying that Christianity played a useful role in civilizing Western Europe, we are now civilized. It's beneficial role is highly questionable at this point.

freeman3 wrote:I will say that DF might be right in a way, I don't even like the Christian religion much, even apart from the proof problems. The emphasis on helping the poor and others (which most Christians simply ignore with a variety of excuses)is probably the best part about the religion;

No, we don't ignore it. We take it as the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Just as salvation is an individual situation, so is how one deals with wealth.

If the command was for government, why didn't Jesus address the Roman government? Why not a "Caesar, tear down this wall" speech?

the emphasis on how bad man is I find to be very misplaced. There is this Christian radio station that I listen to that for some reason amuses me and they just go on ad nauseum that anything that man does that is good is due to God while everything bad is due to man

If you believe man is inherently good, you've got a lot of explaining to do. Meanwhile Paul said he was what he was "by the grace of God."

Then there are the end of times programs. Man is terrible and judgment day is coming soon--give me a break.

I will.

God? That's up to Him.

Finally, I find the whole idea of worship of a deity to be contrary to being an adult. Ok, you created me. Thanks. (if that is the case, which is extremely doubtful). But to bow down to a supreme being so that I can get everlasting life--I would like to think a supreme, perfect being would be above that.

Is it not a bit arrogant to decide what God should be like? Isn't that His prerogative?

The reason that faith is so important for the Christian religion, instead of just being a good person, is that, well, there is this problem of proof. So, yeah, even if there is a supreme being I am not going, in order to live forever in some kind of existence that is not really explained, I have to say how bad I am, and great he is now and forever. No thanks.

You have a seriously deficient understanding of Christianity.

You describe yourself as an "atheist." I doubt that. I think you're more likely an "agnostic." For example, if I ask you "Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory (not the TV sitcom)?" what would you say?

If yes, I would ask for "proof." If no, then how did it all come into being? There are so many "coincidences" necessary for life to start and continue, it's mathematically improbable. However, none of that will convince you. Why? The Bible says it's because you suppress the truth. Man is rebellious and it began with Adam.

No one, not one, is "good." Each of us falls short of the glory of God and "sins." The problem is that "sin" is not minor. God is eternal, holy, just, and hates sin. We sin. To enter into His presence, our sin must be removed--and we are incapable of doing so. So, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, left heaven, took on a human existence, experienced all that we do, yet never sinned. He obeyed perfectly--the life we cannot live. He then died in the place of sinners so that all who believe in Him might have their sins credited to Him and His righteous perfection accounted to them. He was raised from the dead on the third day and is now interceding for believers.

It's beneficial role is highly questionable at this point.

Have we come so far since the slaughters of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?

danivon wrote:Bbauska - how was your post in reply to the words of mine you quoted?

Only in the fact that Freeman brought religion into the discussion. It is a political forum that is having an atheist use religion to discount another person. It appears the same to me as a person using religion to discount an atheist.

I will not discuss scripture with you. It appears to me that you only wish to use that discussion to discount my beliefs.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Bbauska - how was your post in reply to the words of mine you quoted?

Only in the fact that Freeman brought religion into the discussion. It is a political forum that is having an atheist use religion to discount another person. It appears the same to me as a person using religion to discount an atheist.

I will not discuss scripture with you. It appears to me that you only wish to use that discussion to discount my beliefs.

Read again the words of mine you quoted. Religion was not the issue.

fate

The intro:

Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.
#memebuster

from the article

The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage)

What meme were you trying to bust? It seems like he confirms the first two. The last claim mabe shouldn't be invented, but proposed .... So what?

It looks like the technical "glitches" will cause a 6 week delay in the individual mandate. There's a lot of vendor finger pointing going on right now.

Not all mandates are equal. The ACA requires certain minimum standards of coverage that are beyond what the Heritage Foundation recommended. It's one thing to require that a car owner buy collision insurance. It's another to require that their insurance company pays for free oil changes.

ray

Not all mandates are equal. The ACA requires certain minimum standards of coverage that are beyond what the Heritage Foundation recommended. It's one thing to require that a car owner buy collision insurance. It's another to require that their insurance company pays for free oil change

But they proposed a mandate .... period.

Do you have a comparison handy that illustrates a vast gulf in what the ACA minimums are and what the HF proposed?
Are the ACA minimal standards unreasonable? If so, why?

Danivon,
Quit being so defensive. Freeman brought up religion this time. Not you.

I acknowledge this fact for all to see.

Doctor Fate wrote:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 52951140/1

The intro:

Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

#memebuster

Did you read this beyond the first sentence? He says, Heritage didn't invent ObamaCare, but we did promote--other's invented it--something that is quite similar when Clinton was president. So similar he has to say:

And there's another thing. Changing one's mind about the best policy to pursue — but not one's principles — is part of being a researcher at a major think tank such as Heritage or the Brookings Institution. Serious professional analysts actually take part in a continuous bipartisan and collegial discussion about major policy questions. We read each other's research. We look at the facts. We talk through ideas with those who agree or disagree with us. And we change our policy views over time based on new facts, new research or good counterarguments.

Thanks to this good process, I've altered my views on many things. The individual mandate in health care is one of them.