Dan57 said:
Enabling slothfulness is not a nice Christian attribute; "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The bums I was referring to don't necessarily need help, they're just experts at exploiting others.
The bum across the street isn't necessarily a victim that was robbed and beaten, they are often just lazy slobs who have never worked and wouldn't take a job if you offered them one. So while I have no problem being a good Samaritan towards those in need, I resent paying the bills for people who simply refuse to put forth any effort to take care of themselves. "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8)
Paul was speaking about the communal lifestyle being lived then, in which ALL were to contribute. Your perception of what a slothful person is, is rather biased as not all so-called bums are slothful. Besides are you advocating that all Christian missions that feed the hungry are not doing God's will? The issue is UH, not lazy people, which is a matter of perception.
FYI, there are no bums across my street and those that are downtown where street people live are not necessarily there because they deserve to be. Yours is a rather sad and un-useful stereotypical indictment of all street people. It is also not an attitude Christian's should have.
Also please note there was no GOOD Samaritan in Luke, he was just A Samaritan. A proper Christian attitude does not mean we are GOOD, because Jesus said no man is good. You are not paying anybody's bills by paying your taxes, except your taxes. I would respectfully suggest you look inwards about your attitude towards social welfare, and not take Paul's words OUT of context.
pom2014 said:
Let me ask you, our King said give your coat, go twice the distance for people that harm you.
Whereas Paul says don't to that unless he deserves it.
Whom do you follow? The King that gives to even the wicked or The man Paul?
Paul didn't contradict Jesus pom. They both spoke about social responsibility. Paul's instruction was towards the communal body and those who purported to be Christian but would mooch off the real Christians.
Born_Again said:
"UH means you don't pay anywhere NEAR what your healthcare actually costs. You pay a fraction of the cost. As far as the bum is concerned, you apparently have never read the story of the Samaritan in Luke 10?"
The person in that story was at least grateful. And I doubt they had 6 kids, all by different fathers. They were in need and an unfortunate victim.
Assumption does not justify treating anyone other than how you would want to be treated. The moral being conveyed was one of social responsibility by Samaritans, not who the person in the ditch was. We don't deserve salvation so why should we want anyone to qualify for social welfare?
Dan57 said:
I believe that any civilized society must exercise compassion for the poor and needy. But to elevate everyone
to the same level is socialism, and it kills individual incentive and ambition. If we give everyone the same healthcare,
why not give everyone the same house, car, etc? Beyond emergency medicine, I don't think anyone should have
a right to anything more unless they're prepared to pay for it. I'm not referring to a hardworking poor person who can't
afford a hospital stay, that's what Medicaid is for.. But I resent paying for premium healthcare for a drug addicted bum
who's heart attack is self-induced.. Emergency treatment, yes.. But heart transplant, stents, or valve replacement, no.
Just my opinion of course.
My UH paid for the two stents in my coronary artery. My eating lifestyle is what contributed to my CAD. Tell me what the difference is, in your view, between me and the bums you seem to be so hung up on? In Canada, UH is not premium healthcare, it is standard healthcare. Medicaid is NOT UH.
As Christians, nothing we did warranted our salvation, so why would you want anyone to qualify for UH by their lifestyle, when you didn't qualify for salvation by yours?
Dan57 said:
I certainly don't oppose helping people with addictions, in fact I've paid for 2 people to get into rehab.. Its not a matter of "I got mine", its a matter of helping others to help themselves. You do that by helping and requiring them to take responsibility for themselves, instead of enabling them to live off the welfare of others. Conservative Christians prefer to teach a man to fish so he'll be able to feed himself. Your philosophy just keeps people reliant on society to survive, which doesn't solve the underlining problem. Empowering people to be self-sufficient is more Christian than making sure they remain dependent on you.
Loving your neighbor doesn't necessarily mean emptying your bank account so your neighbor doesn't need to work. That's not love, its not even charity, its removing the incentive for someone else to reach their potential in life. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn...The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18). Again, I'm not speaking about people who are down on their luck, my reference to "bums" was directed towards deadbeats who demand that everyone else take care of them. In such cases, sometimes tough love is more compassionate that anything else.
Fist of all there is no qualification in scripture to help others to help themselves. Charity has NO qualifications. We are either charitable or we aren't. Jesus healed the bum and said go and sin no more. Obviously Jesus didn't hold the bums sins against him did he?
Loving you neighbour means if he asks you for your cloak you give him your shirt as well. Matt 5:40.
There is no limit to love and Jesus showed this.
The point to UH is that it does not involve really ANY sacrifice, as it is paid out of our personal income taxes. It is NOT sacrificial and involves very little after thought. Looking for reasons to not pay it only shows one's lack of charity.