Who’s getting tired of all the ads that are calling the proposals for Health Care reform “Socialized Medicine”? Even the most liberal approach to the reforms “Single Payer” is not at all socialized medicine. At most, it might me considered “socialized payment” or “socialized administration”. None of the plans call for socialized medicine, if you are one that falls for this misinformation then the Insurance Companies are getting just what they want from you.

A more realistic example of socialized medicine would be the British System, in which the hospitals are run by the government and the doctors are on the payroll of the government. Another example closer to home would be the VA in which the government provides the hospitals and the doctors to vets. What is being proposed here “Single Payer or a Government Option” is a system in which the federal program only takes the place of the insurance company and pays the bills to the doctors or the hospitals. This program is more analogous to the Canadian and French systems. The beauty of this program is that it takes away the insanity that doctors have to go thru in dealing with hundreds of separate carriers and it provides coverage for everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Do you really have a personal relationship with your insurance provider today? Do you even have a choice in which carrier you get? Most people don’t, they have to take whatever carrier their company provides for them. And then, once they take the carrier that is provided, they usually have to pick a doctor that is on the plan that the company offers. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a lot of free choice to me. You are being lied to by Insurance Companies. Single Payer will provide more choice and more cost savings to the average household. The only group that will suffer form this are the Insurance Carriers, and they will tell you every lie they can to stop it from being implemented. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these companies. The way I see it, they are a big reason costs have escalated and quality of care has decreased over the last 30 years.

The bible was written 2 - 3000 yrs ago by middle eastern men, then translated, transposed, and interpreted a million different ways, with each book chosen by the Catholic church.

Honestly, why would any thinking person take all of the bible literally, without analysis of the context of the political / social climate of the time, and expect others to do the same?

Have your faith, from your heart, but keep it out of my politics. Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you work for the man/woman upstairs. God/Creator speaks to all people in different ways, you just have to learn to listen.

The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians.

The bible was written 2 - 3000 yrs ago by middle eastern men, then translated, transposed, and interpreted a million different ways, with each book chosen by the Catholic church.

Honestly, why would any thinking person take all of the bible literally, without analysis of the context of the political / social climate of the time, and expect others to do the same?

Have your faith, from your heart, but keep it out of my politics. Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you work for the man/woman upstairs. God/Creator speaks to all people in different ways, you just have to learn to listen.

The bible was written by Holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit during a period of 1600 years extending from 1492 BC to 100 AD. It has 66 seperate books written by about 40 different authors. By Kings such as David and Solomon; by statesmen as Daniel and Nehemiah; by priests such as Ezra; By jewish men such as Paul and herdsman like Amos, a Physician like Luke; even tax collectors and fishermen wrote it. It's pages were penned in the wilderness of Sinai, the cliffs of Arabia, the hills and towns of Palestine, Persia, Babylonia, the dungeons of Rome and the island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea. There is a progress of revelation and doctrine in it. The two halves put together make a whole. (the old and new testament)The new is "enfolded" in the Old and the old is "unfolded: in the New. You can't understand The book of Hebrews in the NT without the book of Leviticus in the OT. and so on.

The language of the bible is threefold. Figurative, Symbolic, and Literal. The meaning of figurative language in the bible is made clear by the context. Symbolic language is explained either in the same chapter or somewhere else in the bible. The rest of the language in the bible is to be read like any other book, letting it say what it wants to say without allegorizing or spiritualizing its meaning. (literal)

It has been translated into other languages, but its meaning is the same in any language. It has not been interpreted a million different ways, as you say. When the bible says," thou shalt not steal."", that's just what it says and means. It's not a gray area. It's black and white, clear as day.

BTW, as a Christian, I certainly do work for God. Anything He would ask me to do, I would comply.

Because of your last statement, Is there something in particular that you feel I am not listening to God about?

It has been translated into other languages, but its meaning is the same in any language. It has not been interpreted a million different ways, as you say. When the bible says," thou shalt not steal."", that's just what it says and means. It's not a gray area. It's black and white, clear as day.

Except when it totally contradicts itself as it does here:

But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Exodus 3:22)

Except when it totally contradicts itself as it does here:

But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Exodus 3:22)

How does that verse contradict itself? Or are you saying that it contradicts something else stated in the bible?

You darkened,"and ye shall spoil the Egyptians." Why?

okay, I see now by my last post why you would think that the bible contradicts itself about 'stealing'.

But it doesn't. As you read more of the scriptures, it becomes clearer. In Exodus 12:35 and 36 it states: "The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.

Also, Exodus 11:2,3 says,"Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold. The Lord made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and Moses himself was highly regarded in Egypt by Pharoahs's officials and by the people."

Deuteronomy 15:12-15 (God speaking his laws to the Israelites) "If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your wine press. Give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you. That is why I give you this command today."

God had promised Abraham that after Israel had served for 400 years they would "come out with great posessions" (genesis 15:14) Israel herself was to live by the same principle of providing gifts to a released slave. They were NOT stealing from the Egyptians. They willingly gave these gifts to the Israelites as they left. They were glad to see them leave. (psalm 105:37,38) The Egyptian people had witnessed that the Israelite's God was the true God even when their government (Pharoah) refused to recognize this fact.

Mince the words in any way you like, all three of these look like they are justifying stealing to me:

Exodus 3:21-22, 12:35-36 & Luke 19:29-34

The passage from Luke (isn’t this supposed to be the kinder gentler New Testament?) is particularly troubling:

Luke 19:29-34

29As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, 30"Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it.' "

32Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. 33As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?"

34They replied, "The Lord needs it."

Speaking of all that is holy... holy frijoles kartman! 15% body fat??? Whoot! You are something special.

Thanks!

Actually, I’m at about 14% Body Fat now, but who’s counting

I’m actually pretty much where I wanted to be with weight and am now focusing on toning up various parts of my body. I love the new me, especially how I look in “normal” clothes. People that didn’t know me before say there is no way I was ever fat. They say I just look like a “normal” guy to them. The band is still working great! It pretty much curbs my appetite and keeps the weight off, and the gym is doing wonders with filling out all the right places. I feel like I have a new lease on life:thumbup::thumbup:

Mince the words in any way you like, all three of these look like they are justifying stealing to me:

Exodus 3:21-22, 12:35-36 & Luke 19:29-34

The passage from Luke (isn’t this supposed to be the kinder gentler New Testament?) is particularly troubling:

Luke 19:29-34

29As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, 30"Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it.' "

32Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. 33As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?"

34They replied, "The Lord needs it."

I've already explained Exodus and Luke. The Egyptians gave them the goods. As for the passage in Luke 19, To someone who understands that God owns everything, this passage does not justify stealing. And, even if it does to you, I remind you of what God has said of himself in Psalms 50:10 and 11:

"for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine."

In other words, if God takes it from you, he's not stealing. He owns it. Everything that you and I have belongs to him, for he is the creator, and he can take it from us at any moment in time if he chooses. He has never advocated stealing. As a matter of fact "Thou shalt not steal." is one of the 10 commandments of God.

I've already explained Exodus and Luke. The Egyptians gave them the goods. As for the passage in Luke 19, To someone who understands that God owns everything, this passage does not justify stealing. And, even if it does to you, I remind you of what God has said of himself in Psalms 50:10 and 11:

"for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine."

In other words, if God takes it from you, he's not stealing. He owns it. Everything that you and I have belongs to him, for he is the creator, and he can take it from us at any moment in time if he chooses. He has never advocated stealing. As a matter of fact "Thou shalt not steal." is one of the 10 commandments of God.

The problem with that argument is that it is a slippery slope that gives any people the right to take what they want as long as it is in the name of God. The pilgrims came here and took the land of the Indians to form a “nation under God” (as you remind us of always). The Israelis took Palestine from the Palestinians. Europeans and early Americans were “Gods People” and had a God given right to take the barbarian slaves. The early church took lands, riches, and lives form the masses in the name of God. I could give you a hundred more examples of cases in which “God’s People” borrowed (took, stole, misappropriated, etc.) from unbelievers (other believers, heathens, faceless people, etc.).

Since I don’t believe in God in the way that you do, I certainly don’t think everything belongs to him (regardless of what the Bible says). Even if I did, how could any man arbitrate how God might want his “things” portioned out? “Things” don’t belong to God, and they were not being given to God when they were “stolen”. I don’t think that the people that lost those things believe that God benefitted from their loss.

A failing that you seem to always stumble on is that you try prove things based on what the bible says. The problem with this is that I reject the writings of the bible, so you can’t use that source as proof with me. I on the other hand can point out the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and outright contradictions in the bible because you have already professed to believe in it fully (especially the parts that suit your jaded political/social view).

The problem with that argument is that it is a slippery slope that gives any people the right to take what they want as long as it is in the name of God. The pilgrims came here and took the land of the Indians to form a “nation under God” (as you remind us of always). The Israelis took Palestine from the Palestinians. Europeans and early Americans were “Gods People” and had a God given right to take the barbarian slaves. The early church took lands, riches, and lives form the masses in the name of God. I could give you a hundred more examples of cases in which “God’s People” borrowed (took, stole, misappropriated, etc.) from unbelievers (other believers, heathens, faceless people, etc.).

There seems to be something that you don't understand. The whole reason the scriptures were given to mankind from God was to point out their sinfulness and their NEED for the Savior that He was going to send for them. All of the above scenerios of 'stealing' that you point out did happen and people even did dome of those things in the name of God, but it DOES NOT mean that God advocates stealing. All it does is show you exactly what God would like you to see, which is man's NEED for the Savior. Man is a truly sinful being, and God is Holy and righteous. Man can not enter into heaven with the sin they have upon them. They need the Savior, Jesus, to get them there from here.

Since I don’t believe in God in the way that you do, I certainly don’t think everything belongs to him (regardless of what the Bible says). Even if I did, how could any man arbitrate how God might want his “things” portioned out? “Things” don’t belong to God, and they were not being given to God when they were “stolen”. I don’t think that the people that lost those things believe that God benefitted from their loss.

A failing that you seem to always stumble on is that you try prove things based on what the bible says. The problem with this is that I reject the writings of the bible, so you can’t use that source as proof with me. I on the other hand can point out the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and outright contradictions in the bible because you have already professed to believe in it fully (especially the parts that suit your jaded political/social view).

This does not bother me. If you reject the writings of God, then fine. That's your choice. Also, I can correct any contradiction you feel is in the bible, because there are none.

This does not bother me. If you reject the writings of God, then fine. That's your choice. Also, I can correct any contradiction you feel is in the bible, because there are none.

This is exactly the kind of absolutism from religious people that baffles and frightens me. I find it utterly absurd that someone would believe without question in something that just seems wrought with questionable facts, distorted timelines, fantasy, conjecture (feel free to insert other adjectives), etc. I guess that is why they call it faith rather than fact. It is certainly your right to believe in it to your heart’s desire – I just wish you would stop trying to impose that faith on the rest of society thru laws.

so then, where do you get your standards for the laws you would like to see in place? You may say that you'd like to ban sex between a brother and a sister, but what if they are comfortable with that? what if they want to get married? Who are you to say it is not acceptable? Who am I to say it is not acceptable? This is why people need moral guidelines. There is a right and a wrong for everything. Who is to decide? You? Me? How about the Creator of you and me?

so then, where do you get your standards for the laws you would like to see in place? You may say that you'd like to ban sex between a brother and a sister, but what if they are comfortable with that? what if they want to get married? Who are you to say it is not acceptable? Who am I to say it is not acceptable? This is why people need moral guidelines. There is a right and a wrong for everything. Who is to decide? You? Me? How about the Creator of you and me?

Let’s stick with just you and me and leave “the creator” out of it. You and me and the rest of society make up an electorate. Some of us have religious views, some don’t - but we all have a sense of right and wrong. We don’t need a religion, a book, a pastor, or even a God to tell us which is which. We are all adults and should be able to reason our way thru those things.

Some things are obvious, like rape, robbery, and murder. We all know those are wrong and the people that do those things have to pay their debt to society (not to God, to society). Other things are not so clear - segregation, gay rights, abortion, etc. For these tougher questions, society decides en mass thru elections what it deems to be right and wrong. This is a simple concept of secular democracy. In a society as diverse as ours, there is really no other logical way to do it – to even suggest a religious foundation be applied to any of our laws is ludicrous.

A simple example of this is gay marriage. Can you give me a non-religious reason why same sex partners should not be allowed to marry? I can’t think of one. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I think government should treat all Marriages as Civil Unions and give the all the same benefits whether they are same sex or M/F. Marriages should strictly be the purview of religion. If one religion chooses to Marry you, then it is their choice – but that marriage only has significance within the religion but no legal standing.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by KartMan

Marriage happens to be a religious and God ordained institution that He set up for a a man and a woman together. Granted, you don't believe in God, but none the less, those who do, believe marriage is a definition for a man and a woman who pledge a devotion together and make a vow before God. Now, when a minority of society wants to change the definition of marriage to something they believe it is, to do so is to infringe on the rights of those who see it differently. Do gay people want to have a special committment to one another that's similar to marriage only they want to have 2 of the same sexes involved? Then they should come up with their own word for an institution such as theirs. They once called it a civil union. What's wrong with that? But no, they are not satisfied with just a 'civil union'. they want the religious people who KNOW that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman to 'recognize' that they can be married also. Those of us who believe in God don't want our definition for marriage to be changed.

Some Christians don't want Civil unions either. I for one, would prefer for gay people to stop doing what they are doing and see it for the sin that it is. But, there will always be people who do wrong in the world, and it would be impossible to stop it all, so, I say just let them do what they want. But they should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage. Some gay people believe that when they get married and say their vows before God that He is accepting of their committment to one another. God does not lie, and in his word, he says that homosexuality is a sin. He would never be accepting of sin of any kind. They are only fooling themselves. Unless of course they want to say their vows to a God other than thee God, Jesus.

It is NOT okay to have sex with the same sex as far as God and many Christians who follow Him are concerned. Period. He calls it a sin and to allow it is just as bad as allowing any other sin to be acceptable by society and made into law. Now, I understand that everyone sins. don't get me wrong, it's one thing to sin, it's quite another to demand that the world accept it as okay. We have this problem already with abortion in this country. The government has made it legal, and it is sinful to murder children. We don't need any more sins becomeing lawful.

Apart from the bible: The family unit is that of a mom and a dad. Every study out there shows that both are needed in a relationship with children involved. The father brings one thing to the kids and the mother brings yet another. If everyone had samesex partners, how would children be brought into the world? Common sense shows that the best thing for a family is one mom and one dad. (God has the best plan for families and marriage) Also, once same sex marriage becomes accepted into a society, they will begin to incorporate the 2 men together or 2 women together with children in photos and words in our public school text books and infringe upon the rights of the religious majority who feel it is sinful and wrong and don't want their children to believe otherwise.

Edited December 11, 200916 yr by pattygreen