Nathan Poe quote
Make up your mind, or at least have the honesty to come right out and condemn these people to die.
Response
The concept that Christians condemn people to die is detestable. The Bible teaches personally responsibility. Atheists advocate the group responsibility concept of Socialism.
Christians must present to the world what is good and what is evil, as defined in the Bible, and warn people that evil leads to disease, death and destruction. At that point, whatever happens to the person is their own personal responsibility.
There is always an intent to place a guilt trip on Christians, that they are not doing enough, but that guilt trip (if accepted) is not from God. If a woman has an abortion, then she and the doctor is the one that killed the baby, not me for failing to prevent her. If a child starves to death because the father abandoned the child, it is the father that killed the child, not me for not giving the child food. If a child is killed in a war because the leader got the nation into war, then it is the leaders that killed the child, not me for fighting in the war.
Every Christian must answer to God and if God lays something on the heart of a person, then it must be done, but the great commission is to save peoples souls, not their physical bodies. If a person is led to give money to the poor, that is fine with me because I presume God led them to do that, but I do not believe giving money to the poor is a requirement of a Christian, especially if that money ends up subsidizing sin instead of leading the person to a changed lifestyle.
The government must present to the world what is good and what is evil, and then warn people that evil leads to disease, death and destruction. At that point, whatever happens to the person is their own personal responsibility.
The only time this has been done recently is the "Is there anything dumber than smoking" campaign. The basic concept of the tobacco settlement was that the government should not be responsible for the expense of lung cancer because the tobacco companies did not provide a warning.
The government has an additional responsibility and that is to eliminate evil when it is a threat to society. Murders are a threat to society and they should be eliminated by execution. People that drive cars after repeated DUIs should be executed because they represent a threat to society. There are a lot of issues that should be dealt with on the bases of a "three strikes and you are out (executed)"
The government has a responsibility to protect the people from evil and to eliminate evil. Government does not have a responsibility to provide services for the people.
It is one thing to spend money to investigate a disease/condition and determine what can be done, but it is another thing to actually do anything, especially if it is determined the disease can be prevented by people changing their lifestyle.
A lot of people (especially the needy) like the concept of Socialism, because they think they are getting something for nothing. They get money for drugs, but they don't have to stop taking drugs. The needy think it is good that the government steals from the responsible to give to the irresponsible.
Under Socialism, should the government bail out the New York City irresponsible banks that made the mistake of being involved in sub-prime mortgage loans.
Under Socialism, should the government bail out the people of New Orleans that made the mistake of building houses in an area that was underwater with limited protection.
The only reasonable way for people, business and government to operate is personal responsibility. Capitalism produces unequal prosperity, but Socialism creates equal poverty.
The government should get out all socialistic programs such a welfare and health care. The government should not require businesses or individuals to offer or participate in insurance programs that bind the responsible with the irresponsible.
I believe those who advocate the Atheistic Lifestyle do more to condemn people to die than those who advocate the Christian Lifestyle were there is a clear separation of what is good and what is evil. It is sort of silly to advocate recreational sex, then ask the people that live by a code that warns against recreational sex to pay for the mistake that resulted from the recreational sex.
A society that will not eliminate evil will be consumed by the evil it fails to eliminate.
A rotten apple does destroy the whole barrel.
In summary, I do not buy into the guilt trip promoted by the Atheists, but I am glad you asked the question.
