Heal the Sick, Cure the Lame

- by Mo (Montclair)

Heal the Sick, Cure the Lame

Heal the Sick, Cure the Lame.

Comments for Heal the Sick, Cure the Lame:

Jesus wasn't talking to the government -- by Sheila Hansen

Jesus wasn't talking to the government, he was speaking to you and me, to every individual. How this caring happens, likewise, is up to each individual.

We may choose to put government policies in place to handle certain needs of the people, or we may not. Government is not the answer. The answer is in the heart of humanity, where God also dwells.

Did Jesus say government should not heal the sick or cure the lame? -- by Mo

In this day and age, the government must play an important role. Unless you know of churches or people who can and will take care of the sick and lame. If so, let me know who they are, I can send them busloads of homeless people in need of serious medical care, bypass surgeries, cancer treatments, etc.

So, are you serious in your view that individuals and churches can meet the needs or is this just sort of a half-hearted argument to avoid the issue?

Check this out if you want to talk more http://www.gospelpolitics.com/gospel-and-government.html

You are wiser than Jesus -- by Sheila Hansen

Mo, so you are wiser than Jesus to say 'in this day and age'. You don't think Jesus understood the heart of man? You want to be the fixer-upper and correct Jesus' mistakes? Alrighty then.

We need a change of heart, the church's role in this is in the spiritual realm. The best thing a good and Godly preacher can do is to teach his own understanding of his chosen religion, this may cross over into politics, and that should be perfectly OK.

If they do a good job, the world becomes a better place. Preventing people from speaking, or forcing people to give what they don't have the heart to give, will not create the world you envision.

Not visited our site -- by Mo

Wow, you've obviously not visited our site. We speak a ton about sin. Of course, it's not the kind of sin you'll hear much about in most conservative "Christian" churches. Spend some time on the site and then critique it.

We should help the needy -- by Kat Fleenor

I believe we should help the needy. YES, we definitely should.But why should the gov. enforce it?

2nd Corinthians 9:7

Bernhard as often with you -- by Mo

Bernhard, as often with you, I need to ask you to be more specific. If you think my idea of sin is not God's then you need to specify why you say that.

Kat, I understand your point and certainly agree that we should all voluntarily do what we can. However, the truth is that the poor and needy, and society as a whole for that matter, will never reach it's full potential unless we all work together to build a better community. We should be working to expand the Kingdom of God on earth as in heaven. Yes, that means the spiritual kingdom, but also the physical one.

Health care for all, reduced pollution, just taxation, treating the immigrant among us better than we treat ourselves -- these are examples of gospel politics and Christains cannot avoid these issues by simply saying -- well, to each his own. The reality is that the government is simply the tool the community uses to organize our joint efforts efficiently and effectively.

In the end, the question is which mindset is more Christain: community or individual.

This is the central question that once resolved provides one with their political orientation.

Oh, here's much more on this topic http://www.gospelpolitics.com/gospel-and-government.html

Force him to donate to the poor -- by Robert Cottrill

Bernhard Barkowsky.......If it was up to Jesus their would have been no money.......thus solving the problem of and I quote (sticking a gun to a rich man head to force him to donate to the poor).

Jesus shoot someone -- by Kat Fleenor

You cannot have a community without individuals...

And I'd LOVE to see Jesus shoot someone because he won't give money away.

Cartoon is not Fair in the Slightist -- by Tim Ricard

The point is that cartoon is not fair in the slightist, but the argument behind it appears to be somewhat sound. I still trying to determine my political and theologically beliefs, personally. My main issue with the Gospel and Government argument is that it actually it is very non liberal in most definitions, progressive yes, liberal no. 'But what do you mean Tim ?' Yes we should care for the poor and advance the kingdom of heaven on earth. The difference is that for your entire argument is work, the 'seperation of church and state' what liberals proclaim from the roof tops must be removed.

A significant amount of Christians would support your arguments if we are a Christian nation, but we are not. Should we take from the athiestic capitalistic to fulfill social justice? Should we pursue sin, in order to bring redemption? I honestly do not know. Conservates tend to make money or self idols, while liberals typically make the state or community idols. We all have areas to fix.

Getting back to the cartoon, when did Jesus support forcing good deeds (helping the poor or not sinning)? If the state's job is to do one it follows it ought to do the another. Last thought: your argument hinges upon, ironically, might makes right (because the government is better at social justice than church than churches, it ought to suppercede them).

Which Party is more Consistent with Jesus Values -- by Mo

Tim, you throw up many red herrings. I'm not sure if you do that intentionally or not. My argument is most definitely not, for instance, that government is better at social justice than churches or should supercede them. I also never say separation of church and state should be ended, I don't think that at all.

My point in all this is very, very simple.

Look at the politics of the two parties and ask yourself which is more consistent with Jesus values.

Health care, taxes, immigration, education, transportation, food, lifting up the poor, immigrants, creation care, gun control --

I could go on and on. On issue after issue -- it is clear that the libs, the dems, the progressives -- when it comes to politics

-- share Jesus values. The GOP, conservatives generally oppose promotion of Jesus values in public policy.

Please tell me if you think I am wrong and if so, why. For instance, do you think Jesus would favor universal health care or

oppose it? Do you think Jesus would favor limits on assault weapons or oppose them? Would Jesus favor promotion of clean energy, even if it meant some sacrifice, or would he favor unfettered burning of coal and destruction of mountaintops so we can have the cheapest energy possible for a few years (and an eternity of global warming and environmental degredation).

All these issues boil down to two central concepts:

Community vs individual

Sacrifice vs selfishness

Of course neither party is perfect. But, don't fall for arguments of false equivalency. For Christians there is a clear choice and it's not that hard.

Should we Force Non-believers to Sacrifice Themselves? -- by Tim Ricard

Should we force non-believers to sacrifice themselves to causes that they do not believe in.

That is the issue progressives typically ignore. There is an analytical case for government supported social services, I am just objecting to the moral argument. In the end can we force citizens to sacrifice, if a coercised sacrifice is a true a sacrifice, or force them to be part of a community that they do not want to be part of. I personally am very willing to sacrifice and be part of the greater community, but many are not.

So would Jesus support universal healthcare? He would certainly support healthcare which is universal, but in the end would he support a system which takes money from the greedy and gives it to the poor? The latter portion is biblical, the former, I simply do not know. There is of course there is Leviticus 19:9, so your argument is somewhat justified, but Leviticus also includes other laws which are not so liberal... On the cause of environmental (creation care) I agree with you 100%.

The distinction is that creation care is the prevention of harm and use of good stewardship, caring for the poor is an active pronouncement.

In the end, do we have the moral authority to force the selfish to sacrifice and the individualist join the community? I have not found biblical text to support either one. True Christians should sacrifice and be part of the community. Jesus healed the sick, he did not force doctors to do so. Jesus feed the hungery, he did not force fisherman to do so, they did it in obedience. In the end, the ends do not justify the means.

Basically two things: ends do not justify means Community and sacrifice should not be forced upon the unwilling.

Afraid Others Might not Agree with us -- by Mo

So we do not support community and sacrifice because we are afraid others might not agree with us?

Why do we have a defense department then?

Do not Support forcing People to Sacrifice -- by Tim Ricard

Simply put, I do not support forcing people to sacrifice or be part of the greater community. Should they certainly, but one cannot and should not force sacrifice or community, both intrisically are heart decisions, not one made by another.

God did not place make an unwilling sacrifice on the Cross, God does not force us into community with Him. God does not force martyrdom. In the end, why are we so self-righteous that we think we have more say over each other, and more right to control each than God? If God does not force the unwilling to help the poor, why should we? First heart change, then life change. Not vice versa.

Feeding the poor: noble, biblical, and moral. Forcing your neighbor (or stealing from them) to feed the poor: morally questionable, good ends bad means, not biblical (unless I am missing a passage).

New! Comments

Have your say about what you just read! Leave me a comment in the box below.

Like This Site

+1 Gospel Politics

Like This Page