Supposed social justice?

[Cachook]

The leftist party in the United States, the democrats, as well as others internationally, are usual self-declared social champions. Why, then, is it when anyone with a differing viewpoint comes along he or she is called a bigot or told to "get with the times"? Also, why is it the same party screaming for "rights" for homosexuals is the same one supporting Barack Obama (or Barry Sotero) Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, and the party spearheading the increase of government into the privacy of the home while telling others not to judge what occurs in one's bedchamber?

Why is it the party which supports "social justice" seems to support injustice and anti-Christ while using the uninformed for a vote?

 

[ActionJ]

The beast is rearing its ugly head. It knows that its ultimate destination is the lake of fire so it's going to put up a nasty fight until the end when Christ returns and does a little house cleaning.

 

[Sketcher]

That's part of why I reject their way of thinking.

 

[Albion]

The leftist party in the United States, the democrats, as well as others internationally, are usual self-declared social champions. Why, then, is it when anyone with a differing viewpoint comes along he or she is called a bigot or told to "get with the times"? Also, why is it the same party screaming for "rights" for homosexuals is the same one supporting Barack Obama (or Barry Sotero) Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, and the party spearheading the increase of government into the privacy of the home while telling others not to judge what occurs in one's bedchamber?

Why is it the party which supports "social justice" seems to support injustice and anti-Christ while using the uninformed for a vote?

The answer is that Liberalism is Socialism in progress. As such, its first objective is to tear down the existing social order, much of which is what it is because of our Christian past. Ideological or philosophical consistency is not particularly important, just the result. Rights for homosexuals, therefore, is actually the campaign to end the family and the institution of marriage. Privacy is not part of their worldview, but can be appealed to whenever that's to their advantage. In the case of abortion, it is. In the case of other activities we engage in, it's not.

 

[Touchemama]

They think they are wiser and smarter than God. This is why they want to throw out religion and God as His word points its finger at them and they don't like being put into the spotlight.

 

[SearchingStudent]

The answer is that Liberalism is Socialism in progress. As such, its first objective is to tear down the existing social order, much of which is what it is because of our Christian past. Ideological or philosophical consistency is not particularly important, just the result. Rights for homosexuals, therefore, is actually the campaign to end the family and the institution of marriage. Privacy is not part of their worldview, but can be appealed to whenever that's to their advantage. In the case of abortion, it is. In the case of other activities we engage in, it's not.

Ahhh yes, the one trick pony. Let's make sure all the babies get born but make sure there is absolutely no safety net for the families that can't afford them. Let's make sure that women can't have access to birth control (unless they can afford the full price), Let's force our morality on everyone, even though I can't find a single incidence in the Gospels where Jesus took this sort of tact with the people he preached to...seems to me He preached and let the people decide. There will always be those who refuse to hear.

Regarding homosexuals "ending the family and institution of marriage", I would ask you to consider this: There is marriage in the secular world which is no more than a (usually) temporary legal contract between 2 consenting adults. Then, there is marriage for Christians, which is a covenant between three, he, she and God which is until death. Let those who want to enter the legal contract do so...then there are those of us who keep the vow of until death. Funny how the divorce rate among self-identified Christians is just as high as the world...there's something wrong there. Homosexuals won't destroy marriage and family, I'd say the straights have already done that.

Let's make sure that people who are in dire circumstances are unable to afford decent medical care, and continue to access the ERs which have to treat them even though they know they will never get paid. Let's continue to bankrupt families who are hit hard by catastrophic diseases (case in point, my husband's disease, treatment and surgery has hit 500K right now and is still rising, this year alone. Praise God we are blessed with double insurance and so far have only had to pay out about 200.00)...however, there are others with the same disease that cannot afford the treatment and surgery that will cure them.

But...hey, that's just fine...no more dead babies...who cares if they're starving, sick, destitute...

I once had a "friend" tell me that if we lost our insurance, my husband could get care at a free clinic...umm...I really don't think the free clinic had the gastroenterologist, surgeon, transplant surgeon, endocrinologist and pain management specialist on staff. But...hey, it's just fine if he died from complications of his disease...it's his fault he got sick and can't work and it's my fault that I couldn't find a job where we used to live.

This is why I cannot and will not EVER support these knee jerk GOP ignoramouses. They have NO clue of what it's like living in the real world where stuff happens.

 

[Albion]

Ahhh yes, the one trick pony. Let's make sure all the babies get born but make sure there is absolutely no safety net for the families that can't afford them.

I can sense a smokescreen coming--one that will make infanticide seem humane and authoritarianism "good for us." Yes, we've heard it all before.

 

[SearchingStudent]

I can sense a smokescreen coming--one that will make infanticide seem humane and authoritarianism "good for us." Yes, we've heard it all before.

How about substantially attempting to refute everything I've said? No smokescreen...just something to think about...that is if you can actually get your mind around it. I'm not crazy about abortion, however there are two points to consider...first...not everyone shares my POV (yes I am pro-life. I was an unwed 17 year old mom many years ago), and second, if you're broke or can't afford another kid and access to birth control is beyond your means...

Please...go do your homework on the abortion stats...OK? Try a secular source this time.

 

[Albion]

How about substantially attempting to refute everything I've said? No smokescreen...just something to think about...that is if you can actually get your mind around it. I'm not crazy about abortion, however there are two points to consider...first...not everyone shares my POV (yes I am pro-life. I was an unwed 17 year old mom many years ago), and second, if you're broke or can't afford another kid and access to birth control is beyond your means...

Please...go do your homework on the abortion stats...OK? Try a secular source this time.

Sure, I can rebut that sophistry. Mainly, you're arguing for convenience over morality or, if not that, the ever-popular "Those other people are just as bad."

Do you think those arguments aren't as old as the hills and haven't been addressed a thousand and more times? The real question is whether or not it's worth diverting the thread into a sideshow like that. I'm thinking NO, but maybe someone else will accommodate you.

 

[SearchingStudent]

Sure, I can rebut that sophistry. Mainly, you're arguing for convenience over morality or, if not that, the ever-popular "Those other people are just as bad."

Do you think those arguments aren't as old as the hills and haven't been addressed a thousand and more times? The real question is whether or not it's worth diverting the thread into a sideshow like that. I'm thinking NO, but maybe someone else will accommodate you.

You know, I used to think just like you...then I opened my eyes to reality. I'm still waiting for a reasonable address of these points. I am not arguing convenience over morality, I'm asking you to address the HARD question here. Do YOU have the right to decide for the entire population? Do you have the RIGHT to force YOUR belief system on everyone? I would again ask you to read the gospels and point out to me (chapter and verse) of where Christ attempted to force anyone to accept him. What you're doing is not Christ-like. You are just as bad as those you oppose.

 

[Sketcher]

Ahhh yes, the one trick pony. Let's make sure all the babies get born but make sure there is absolutely no safety net for the families that can't afford them.

My sister-in-law was a single mom until she got together with my brother. The state domestic assistance jerked her around quite a bit. When she married my brother, she of course lost benefits (even though he was only a student and not bringing much in) and they then got into a privately run, regional charity which did everything better. She was treated with more respect, they received plenty of good food, they learned budgeting, there was much less red tape, it was truly a hand up rather than a hand out. And it was church-run. All things being equal, I would rather my money go to groups like this than state domestic assistance which takes people for granted.

Let's make sure that women can't have access to birth control (unless they can afford the full price),

Why should people be forced to buy abortive measures of birth control against their conscience? It's one thing to give people a moral alternative to abortion, it's another to force people to subsidize abortion.

Let's force our morality on everyone, even though I can't find a single incidence in the Gospels where Jesus took this sort of tact with the people he preached to...seems to me He preached and let the people decide. There will always be those who refuse to hear.

I am not seeing anything in the post you responded to which advocated forcing Christian morality on everyone.

Regarding homosexuals "ending the family and institution of marriage", I would ask you to consider this: There is marriage in the secular world which is no more than a (usually) temporary legal contract between 2 consenting adults. Then, there is marriage for Christians, which is a covenant between three, he, she and God which is until death. Let those who want to enter the legal contract do so...then there are those of us who keep the vow of until death. Funny how the divorce rate among self-identified Christians is just as high as the world...there's something wrong there. Homosexuals won't destroy marriage and family, I'd say the straights have already done that.

If you are going to look at this through the lens of long-range liberal plans to destroy the family, no-fault divorce was phase 1, and gay marriage/adoption/affirmation would be phase 2. Presuming that such plans exist, of course. Either way, if I had my way, I'd roll them both back.

Let's make sure that people who are in dire circumstances are unable to afford decent medical care, and continue to access the ERs which have to treat them even though they know they will never get paid. Let's continue to bankrupt families who are hit hard by catastrophic diseases (case in point, my husband's disease, treatment and surgery has hit 500K right now and is still rising, this year alone. Praise God we are blessed with double insurance and so far have only had to pay out about 200.00)...however, there are others with the same disease that cannot afford the treatment and surgery that will cure them.

You do not sound familiar with conservative stances on health care. Contrary to liberal doctrine, it is not about discriminating between rich and poor, but rather about implementing the best known mechanisms we have at our disposal to reduce the costs of health care and avoid artificial shortages of such care as much as possible. Artificial shortages happen all the time in countries with socialized medicine, in the form of unfunded hospital rooms, which mean waiting lists. Any more of this than what would otherwise occur is absolutely immoral, because it forces people to continue to wait in pain for many months, some of whom have conditions that need to be caught early and treated early for the best chance of a cure or a decently livable life (i.e. cancer). I like what Ron Paul proposed, how he would have the country do medicine. Prior to Medicare and Medicaid, he saw how people who could not afford treatments got treated at the Christian hospital he worked at, and it was decent, affordable care.

 

[Albion]

You know, I used to think just like you...then I opened my eyes to reality.

Oh brother.

 

[Cachook]

SearchingStudent, your entire argument is not even an argument. It has no basis; you have no argument. All of what you typed was emotionally based with no factual basis behind it. How do you explain being part of a party, and the same does go for the republican party to a lesser degree, being a party which booed God in the 2012 DNC, and call yourself a born again Christian?

 

[SearchingStudent]

SearchingStudent, your entire argument is not even an argument. It has no basis; you have no argument. All of what you typed was emotionally based with no factual basis behind it. How do you explain being part of a party, and the same does go for the republican party to a lesser degree, being a party which booed God in the 2012 DNC, and call yourself a born again Christian?

Its called a heavy dose of life. Homelessness, catastrophic health issues, etc. I see what your side offers...rape is the woman's fault because men can't be trusted to control themselves around a woman who might not have everything covered. "Abortive methods of birth control"...what a joke! If you consider an ovum life, then maybe you need to go re-take biology. Please go read some FACTS!!! The pill, for example, raises certain hormonal levels to impede ovulation. The IUD does much the same thing. Barrier methods, well, they're self explanatory. You guys will happily let insurance companies pay for Viagra for the old geezer who's stuff doesn't work, but you won't let a woman determine whether or not she concieves a child whether within or without marriage. Double standards much?

Tell you what...let's sit down and talk...I'll show you the 500K in medical bills and you tell me what charity, what church would have financed that. Or, maybe it would have been more moral to let my husband suffer and die so YOU don't have to worry about paying for that bill or the ongoing bills.

And you call yourself a Christian? Nah...I'll keep with the "heathen so-called Christians" I am proud to call my friends and family.

 

[Cachook]

Its called a heavy dose of life. Homelessness,(fun stuff, ain't it? not knowing where to go or when the next meal is or if you'll have it) catastrophic health issues (same here), etc. I see what your side offers...rape is the woman's fault because men can't be trusted to control themselves around a woman who might not have everything covered. (Allowing the woman to choose the best way she can, be it a knife or firearm or whatever the case usually solves that problem. This is what is called ad hominen and is also a strawman.)"Abortive methods of birth control"...what a joke! If you consider an ovum life, then maybe you need to go re-take biology. Please go read some FACTS!!! The pill, for example, raises certain hormonal levels to impede ovulation. The IUD does much the same thing. Barrier methods, well, they're self explanatory. You guys will happily let insurance companies pay for Viagra for the old geezer who's stuff doesn't work, (That has to do with the pharmaceutical companies as well;it is more about them making a buck. Their value of human life is abysmal. You cannot blame a group for the self-centered actions of a corporation interested only in gains.) but you won't let a woman determine whether or not she concieves a child whether within or without marriage. Double standards much? That is adultery. Why should anyone have to pay for someone's promiscuity, particularly their sin? Also, where is the man in that situation? Why doesn't he get a say and it is all about you, the female?

Tell you what...let's sit down and talk...I'll show you the 500K in medical bills and you tell me what charity, what church would have financed that. Or, maybe it would have been more moral to let my husband suffer and die so YOU don't have to worry about paying for that bill or the ongoing bills. Again, why is it someone else's responsibility to take care of you? Why are you blaming a conservative who had no knowledge or part in the death of your spouse? Will you pay my bills as well?

And you call yourself a Christian? Nah...I'll keep with the "heathen so-called Christians" I am proud to call my friends and family.

Ad hominen. Again. Have you no original tricks?


Would you like to pay for my three surgeries and years of healthcare and therapy? Have you had an abortion? Mother did. She, to this day, has the same guilt as a murder on death row. Boy, the number of assumptions and generalizations in your argument are astounding, and not a one is correct. You cannot argue conservatives if you fail to understand conservatism.

God said to judge, and by their fruit ye shall know them. The fruit you exhibit doesn't match what we know to be Christian fruit, leaving two possibilities. One is error, which is solved in repentance, and the other is a lack of salvation or loss of salvation, solved by the same.

Abortion is just as much a man's issue and to make it all about the woman is sexist and selfish. Childbirth and rearing require a father and a mother. To tell a man to butt out because he doesn't understand but to blame it on him only shows an ignorance best called apathy, and a selfishness that says I can have as many abortions, better read terminations of pregnancy, as I want, and if you say anything, you are a bigoted sexist. It truly takes an extreme arrogance to say such, and then demand the employer foot the bill, even paying for abortion pills or contraceptives which they are unqualified to distribute, nor should be mandated.
As far as your husband goes, that was tragic, and my prayers flow for you over that loss; loss is hard. However, you still fail to understand healthcare and approach the situation emotionally and not rationally. The way you speak it is as if you wanted the church to assist with all or most of the bills, which they are not obligated to do, but are obliged to assist as best they can. Should the church pay the bills of both my dead addicted uncle and grandfather who drank their ways into an alcoholic grave?

The entire argument you are making revolves around you, your opinions, and your emotions. That is not biblical.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi SS, you wrote:

Ahhh yes, the one trick pony. Let's make sure all the babies get born but make sure there is absolutely no safety net for the families that can't afford them.

I don't think it's fair to say that Pro-Lifers provide "absolutely no safety net" when championing life over abortion, I just don't think you like the ones we suggest ..

Two that come immediately to mind and cost nothing (or next to nothing) for the birth mom are 1) adoption and 2) the extensive services provided by local Pregnancy Care Centers that can and will pay or help pay for needy moms' medical and living expenses, both during and after their pregnancies (as well as helping and supporting the pregnant or new mom in a myriad of other ways, practically, emotionally, and/or spiritually). You continue:

Let's make sure that women can't have access to birth control (unless they can afford the full price)

Condoms can be purchased for less than $0.25 each, right! The "full price" of those doesn't seem excessive and they have the added benefit of providing a measure of safety against STD's .. You continue:

Let's force our morality on everyone

I don't understand why you think Christians have "forced" their morality on anyone, especially considering the nearly unchecked freedom a woman has where abortions are concerned. Rather, a very new "morality" was forced upon everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, in 1973 who believed that abortion always results in the death of a baby. You continue:

Regarding homosexuals "ending the family and institution of marriage", I would ask you to consider this: There is marriage in the secular world which is no more than a (usually) temporary legal contract between 2 consenting adults.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you. I know MANY "secular" couples who consider their marriage to be much more than a "temporary legal contract", even though they don't believe in God. I come from and have married into a very large family where most are either agnostic or avowed atheists, yet there have been almost no divorces on either side. The fact of the matter (for what it's worth) is the percentage of divorces (about 1 in 2) is skewed by the fact that the 50% number includes those who have been divorced, get remarried, and then get divorced again, sometime 2 or more times. The rate of divorce for 1st time marriages is considerably less, both secular and Christian.

That said, here is something else that's important to consider about the truth behind same-sex marriage. Please both read and listen to what LGBTactivist Masha Gessen had to say about it just a month ago. Click here: "Masha Gessen on Marriage" and/or here Masha Gessen on YouTube

That's enough (perhaps too much) for now. I'll try to address at least some of the rest later.

--David

 

[Wolftone]

Let's make sure that people who are in dire circumstances are unable to afford decent medical care, and continue to access the ERs which have to treat them even though they know they will never get paid. Let's continue to bankrupt families who are hit hard by catastrophic diseases (case in point, my husband's disease, treatment and surgery has hit 500K right now and is still rising, this year alone. Praise God we are blessed with double insurance and so far have only had to pay out about 200.00)...however, there are others with the same disease that cannot afford the treatment and surgery that will cure them.

As someone living in the UK, I find it wholly astonishing that a great country such as the USA, cannot find a way of administering good healthcare to its population, regardless of wealth.

God gave us talent and ability to create medicines to cure the masses but it appears that, as usual, the richer you are, the better chances you have of surviving. Both in a developed country and a Christian society, it should be a God given right to have access to good healthcare.

Let me put it another way. What would we think if Jesus had decided to ask for payment before treating the sick? Would he have gone through their pockets before a healing happened? No, of course he wouldn't. Jesus was a champion of the poor and needy and there are many references in the Bible that show his dislike of the selfish use money and wealth.

Why then, does a nation tolerate what is a system based upon what is clearly against the teachings of our Lord and Saviour?

It just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[ActionJ]

As someone living in the UK, I find it wholly astonishing that a great country such as the USA, cannot find a way of administering good healthcare to its population, regardless of wealth.

God gave us talent and ability to create medicines to cure the masses but it appears that, as usual, the richer you are, the better chances you have of surviving. Both in a developed country and a Christian society, it should be a God given right to have access to good healthcare.

Let me put it another way. What would we think if Jesus had decided to ask for payment before treating the sick? Would he have gone through their pockets before a healing happened? No, of course he wouldn't. Jesus was a champion of the poor and needy and there are many references in the Bible that show his dislike of the selfish use money and wealth.

Why then, does a nation tolerate what is a system based upon what is clearly against the teachings of our Lord and Saviour?

It just doesn't sit well with me.

If Jesus lived in today's society He would have been arrested for practicing medicine without a 7-year University degree. Had He had a degree many of the folks who He healed would have brought frivolous lawsuits against him for not healing in the correct way. He would have to follow the mandates of the American Medical Association and the federal government and could only heal using approved methods while avoiding naturalistic or homeopathic methods. He would have to stock all the supplies necessary to practice medicine based on legal statutes (rubber gloves, smocks, disposable needles, etc.). No spitting into dust and using a mud salve to help a blind person to see, etc.

To do things the way that Jesus did them we would have to ask hundreds of thousands of doctors to do their job for free and to do it based on faith and natural methods. To really keep things affordable we would have to do away with all lawyers, the bar association, and the legal profession in general.

 

[ActionJ]

I can sense a smokescreen coming--one that will make infanticide seem humane and authoritarianism "good for us." Yes, we've heard it all before.

Amazing when a person can call himself/herself a "Christian" and still support abortion. The excuse?: a baby might have to live in poverty so it's better to kill it in the womb than allow it to survive and become an instrument for God. In other words, only kids who's folks have cash should have the right to be born. We're obviously becoming a caste society. No?

By the way ... for you pro-abortion folks out there ... I was born into poverty and have remained there all of my life. Couldn't afford a University education but I've worked and produced for 37 solid years. My taxes have been used to support folks on Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I've been a baptized Christian since 1988 and have given to charities and churches during that time. I'm not such a bad guy. Should I have been aborted because my parents were poor?

 

[Albion]

As someone living in the UK, I find it wholly astonishing that a great country such as the USA, cannot find a way of administering good healthcare to its population, regardless of wealth.

Well, we do indeed do that. Our system beats yours in many ways, but the current administration wants uniformity more than efficiency or affordability.

God gave us talent and ability to create medicines to cure the masses but it appears that, as usual, the richer you are, the better chances you have of surviving. Both in a developed country and a Christian society, it should be a God given right to have access to good healthcare.

Where'd you pick that idea up? It would be nice to have, ergo it's a "right?"

Let me put it another way. What would we think if Jesus had decided to ask for payment before treating the sick? Would he have gone through their pockets before a healing happened? No, of course he wouldn't. Jesus was a champion of the poor and needy and there are many references in the Bible that show his dislike of the selfish use money and wealth.

When you come up with a health care system in which blindness and leprosy are cured by the touch of a hand or the application of mud to the victim's face, you'll have a good argument there. In the meantime....no.