Liberal memes debunked: Jesus and Obamacare

bachmann aca

Is there a difference between someone, of their own volition, providing free medical services; and taking money from one group of people without their approval to overpay for other’s medical services?

Jesus healed the sick out of compassion, but also as a proof that he was the Messiah (Matthew 11:2-6/Isaiah 35:5-10).

Progressives, on the other hand, think if you’re poor, everything should free (paid for by those who aren’t poor).  Studying in school, not getting involved in drugs and other crime, not becoming sexually active until you can afford a family are good decisions.  However, by and large, the poor are poor because of the result of a lifetime of poor decisions.  Choosing to goof off in school.  Choosing to drop out.  Choosing to be sexually active at a young age.  Poor choices compound in their negative effects and responsible people shouldn’t have to pay for poor life choices of others.


  1. paynehollow says:

    if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

    But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

    If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

    Blaming the poor is a sort of evil and ugly as hell. Literally.


  2. Yeah, because taking responsibility for your own decisions is a horrible thing.

    While I agree that there is a significant part of the population of the poor in the US are poor because of choices, I’m not sure I’d go as far as you appear to.

  3. paynehollow says:

    I fully support people taking responsibility for their own actions: Like John recognizing the hateful, unhelpful, ungodly tack of blaming the poor as a group for their poverty While he’s at it, he might want to blame rape victims for their rapes and abused children for their own abuse.

    It’s stupid and ugly and just plain evil.

    No more needs to be said about that.


  4. “Choosing to goof off in school. Choosing to drop out. Choosing to be sexually active at a young age. Poor choices compound in their negative effects and responsible people shouldn’t have to pay for poor life choices of others.”

    If I had to guess I’d guess you’d give similar advice to any young person. It seems like such a reasonable position.

    • People don’t make these choices in a vacuum. What influences are around them? If you grow up in a poverty stricken area, you won’t have people teaching you to save money or invest. Lots of people who are sexually active at a young age are doing it because they feel miserable and trying to find an escape. How is that any different from a wealthy person taking lots of vacations, drinking and otherwise trying to find enjoyment in his life?

  5. I do have to note that you haven’t actually interacted with the point of the post. You know the liberal meme that because Jesus healed some people, that this somehow translates into P-BO care.

  6. paynehollow says:

    . It seems like such a reasonable position.

    I was reacting to John’s blaming of the poor as a group (“However, by and large, the poor are poor because of the result of a lifetime of poor decisions.”). THAT is a stupid and ugly and evil thing to do, to blame a whole group of disadvantaged people for being disadvantaged.

    Of course, we can encourage all people to work hard and study in school, but at the same time, to ignore the reality of the extra layers of difficulty the poor experience in just meeting basic needs is, well, to ignore reality. Students who, for instance, are living with their parents in a car, or in a shelter, are starting with a huge disadvantage. Saying “buck up, fella, just work hard and you’ll be fine…” is akin to the evil fools in the book of James who said to the poor, “go, be warm and well fed” and who do nothing to change the reality.

    If you’re unaware of research about the actual causes of poverty and its debilitating effects, well then educate yourselves, don’t speak from a position of arrogant ignorance. That’s a recipe for evil.

    For the record, in the real world, by and large, the poor are poor for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to “it’s their own fault!”


  7. paynehollow says:

    As to John’s point about Jesus not demanding gov’t health care, that’s true, he didn’t. Neither does Jesus condemn gov’t health care. It’s ONE approach to dealing with the problems of health concerns. Relying upon charity (the “good daddy” types helping the “poor pathetic kid” types) is another approach. Neither is chosen by Jesus as the preferred method.

    If we expand our biblical search to approaches to OT solutions, we find that Israel had “federal” rules in place for ensuring the needs of the poor got met, so if you value biblical solutions, then we can’t rule out gov’t approaches.

    If someone is suggesting “The ONLY way that Jesus approves of dealing with poverty/healthcare issues is by federal moneys going to pay for it…” I would disagree with that. But I don’t know that anyone is saying that.

    I fully support churches and non-profits and families stepping up and dealing with the problems associated with poverty. FULLY support it. But, when the private sector fails to step up, I don’t have the slightest reservation about gov’t (ie, we, the people) solutions.

    In the Bible, we find condemnations of the nations that fail to take care of the poor in some method. So, to me, the ultimate thing is to find solutions and when churches and non-profits fail, I want to see some solutions in place.

    As I’ve oft-noted, the really easy solution if you all disapprove of Obamacare is to simply organize churches to step up and deal with the problems of poverty. Sell some of your million dollar church buildings, cash in some of your CDs and solve these problems. BUT, if you’re not going to solve the problems, you’ll please step out of the way of the people who are trying to solve them.


  8. paynehollow says:

    Sigh… Here we are again, back to the whole Delusion Problem.


    its [sic] accurate. The poor in america [sic] are poor, by and large, because of a long list of bad choices on [sic] life.

    John, do you mean to say, “I have exactly zero evidence and have conducted no scholarly research – nor have I read any scholarly research – but it’s my uneducated hunch that most poor people – say 75% or more – are poor because they’ve made bad choices…” or do you mean, “Here is my research that supports the claim that most of the poor in the US are that way because they make bad choices and it’s all their fault…”?

    Seeing as how you have a history of making undocumented, obviously mistaken claims based on swamp gas and arrogance, I presume the former. But, given your repeated history of not even acknowledging your opinions as you own unsupported opinions, I doubt you will acknowledge it here.

    Again, delusion undermines you.

    And save us the time of posting “evidence” of ten or twenty or two hundred poor people you know or have read about who’ve made poor decisions (in your uninformed opinion, not really knowing what led up to any decisions these people may or may not have made). I care very little about anecdotal “evidence” of some small percentage of people or extrapolations made from such “evidence.”

    Again, it’s all about the evidence. You keep producing none.

    And again I say: This blame the victim mentality is evil John. Repent. Heed the words of the Bible you claim to honor.

    “have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

    But you have dishonored the poor man. ”


  9. The government’s duty is to cease implementing policies and programs it is not Constitutionally mandated to do. If the government does its duty, the private sector would thrive and few would have the excuse of not being able to find a job. The fact is that churches and non-profits do NOT fail. Liberal/progressive/Democratic policies always fail.

    I agree with John by virtue of the fact that it is so self-evident. No one here, not John nor myself, are taking a position of “Hey, Bum! Get a job!” despite how badly Dan wishes to portray us as such. We simply acknowledge the reality. Those who thrive economically do things that aren’t done by those who don’t thrive. It’s really that simple. Delaying self-gratification is one of the easiest things to do in the sense that it doesn’t cost anything in terms of money OR effort. One doesn’t do what one can’t afford, including having intercourse, doing drugs, buying “things” one can do without, and a host of other behaviors. To reverse or improve upon one’s station, one must only engage in behaviors that move one from one’s current level to the next.

    None of this is a mystery. None of this is hidden from anyone who wishes to improve his station. Public libraries, where the poor often go to sleep or to warm themselves, have shelves full of books that one can read for free wherein they can find all sorts of ideas for self-improvement. OR, they can sit on their asses waiting for the next government check to arrive and pretend the world is out to get them.

    Thus, between the government doing its duty to the nation, and the individual doing his duty to himself, the result is far fewer people truly in need.

    • “The fact is that churches and non-profits do NOT fail.”

      My mom worked for the postal service and supported us kids while my dad was very ill and could not work. (He wasn’t lazy, he was very ill and died at age 45 so you’ll have to forgive him for not working TVVM.) We were extremely poor and some days mom didn’t even have change to take the bus to work (we lived in NY). We didn’t have a car. My sister and I decided one time to go to a church where we lived in Queens to ask if they could loan my mom $5 to take the bus to work and back and we’d pay them back and give our ID’s and everything so they knew who we were. We lived just about ten blocks away and walked there, btw. This was after we’d spent a lot of time at home searching everywhere for change to make up the fare and couldn’t find any. Well, the church FAILED us and turned us away. And this is the Catholic church that my family, poor as we were, donated money to all the time (mom still does!) My grandmother used to clean the church for free, taught kids to read at the local public school for free, washed the cassocks for free, mended the collection baskets for the church for free. I accompanied her MANY times while she cleaned the church pews and everything else. But the church failed us in our hour of need. They judged us. Didn’t trust us. They could have taken our information. They could have made an effort to validate our story. They did NOTHING. And I will tell you this, MANY years later when my sister’s baby was born at 3 lbs and she was in the ICU for a week for her preeclampsia, she was in dire straits and I asked at my church (the one I’d donated to all the time) for help and they told me to go to the government for help. To hit up government programs. They failed us. And then my church sent me not one but THREE pleas for money because they wanted to build a new sports complex for the school and install a projector in the church. So don’t be telling me that it’s a FACT that churches don’t fail. They fail people every day. And since my family and I have been donating to, going to, and involved with them for so long, trust me I know a lot more about how often and hard they fail than the average person.

  10. Since I know it’ll get me in trouble with other conservatives, let me just say I completely disagree with this post. I do agree with Dan, to a point. But evil? Um, no. John is far from it, Danny boy.

  11. Terrance,

    Where is your disagreement? You believe that it is the duty of government to take money by force from some people in order to provide for others? The government, especially this administration, has done so much to impede the upward progress of people. It has in a very real way told too many they can sit and wait for handouts, while interfering with the natural expansion of the private sector through taxation and regulation.

    Or do you disagree that those in need are always hapless victims of the actions of others or fate itself? If it is true that for every actions there is an equal and opposite reaction, how can our own situation not be a result of our actions, even if we have the best of intentions? There are plenty of examples in life of how this is true.

    No one here suggests that the truly needy should be without some form of assistance. We object to the manner in which assistance is offered and by whom. Both healthcare and welfare exist without concern to whether or not those who apply are acting in a manner that justifies taking from responsible people. Do you lend money to people who use that money for frivolous things? Are you keen on helping people who won’t lift a finger to help themselves? Imagine someone asking you to help them move only to find out that they haven’t acquired a truck or trailer, and haven’t done any packing?

    • Well Jesus didn’t exactly ask you to fill out a background check form and make sure that you were deserving of His gift to you, did He? He didn’t ask you to justify yourself before he DIED for you. But you sit there, having been given this gift, and make demands on others to prove themselves to you. And you put yourself above them saying you are the responsible one. As if all people with money are responsible people and never ever immoral or unjust? Are people who make a lot of money *deserving* of that money? Why? Did they give themselves their talents and abilities? Did they put breath in their own lungs and will their limbs to work and their hearts to beat? Seems like if you’re Christian, you deserve nothing but have it anyway and as in that story in the Bible about the man whose debt was cleared only to run out and refuse to clear a debt owed to him. Who are YOU to demand that poor people prove to you that they are somehow “worthy” of help when God has already made it clear that they ARE and that you are to help them, period? 1 John 3:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? – Do what God tells you to do and leave the rest to HIM.

  12. Dan, the three top predictors of poverty are
    1. Unemployment- Partially a choice
    2. Dropping out of education-choice
    3. Early sexual activity/single parenthood-choice

    So it seems safe to say that over 2/3 of the reasons why people are poor in America biol down to bad choices.

    I love how you misrepresent John’s point.
    1. If he is “blaming” anyone it is the people who made bad choices. Which you agree with.
    2. That there is no “Jesus” position on P-BO care. If anything we could reasonably extrapolate that Jesus would not have favored P-BO care for two reasons.
    a. Jesus clearly did not heal everyone he encountered, therefore He must not have intended that everyone be healed.
    b. Jesus never seemed interested in implementing solutions to problems through government means.

    As far as the OT “rules” about caring for the poor, those are;
    1. Only intended for the Israelite kingdom period.
    2. Written in a mythic style.
    3. Paranoid revenge fantasies of the poor.
    4. Not told in a modern literal historical style.

    So I guess you can’t use them to prove your point.

    “If you’re unaware of research about the actual causes of poverty and its debilitating effects, well then educate yourselves, don’t speak from a position of arrogant ignorance. That’s a recipe for evil.”

    Dan, in case you’ve chosen to ignore this inconvenient fact, I am employed with an organization that works exclusively with the poor. This is my day to day reality. So, please don’t get all condescending and superior with me. I’ve got a pretty darn good idea of what poverty is like in the real world, and shockingly enough the actual predictors of poverty (see above) back me up. So cut the crap.

    “For the record, in the real world, by and large, the poor are poor for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to “it’s their own fault!” ”

    For the record, I’ve listed the top three predictors of poverty, and it’s safe to say that it is reasonable to attribute a significant amount of poverty to poor choices.

    • You know what is the reason we all have to die and that Jesus had to die for us? Pride. Thinking we’re better than everyone else. We’re told to put others ahead of ourselves. We’re told to take care of widows and orphans. We’re told to give of our substance. And no one deserved the gift Jesus gave us. How on earth can you dare to sit in judgement of others, deciding what they “deserve” based on their choices? You deserve HELL based on your choices, but Jesus was kind enough to forgive you. You brought hell upon yourself with no one else’s help. But you don’t have to suffer it.

      Matthew 18

      23“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of goldh was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

      26“At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

      28“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.i He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

      29“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’

      30“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.

      32“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

      35“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

  13. “The new face of poverty has created its own formula for fighting it, one laid out by my former White House colleague Ron Haskins and his coauthor Isabelle Sawhill in their book, Creating an Opportunity Society. According to an article Haskins and Sawhill wrote in the Washington Post summarizing their research: “if you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children.” As Haskins and Sawhill put it, “If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 to 74 percent.”

    There you go Dan. Ron Haskins and Isabelle Sawhill have authored a book about how to escape poverty. Their thesis is summarized in the quote above. Perhaps you’d care to debunk their research.

    At a minimum, it seems reasonable to suggest that if we are serious about minimizing poverty that to address the three items above (Most of which involve choices, or cascades of choices) before we do anything else. If poverty can be reduced significantly by helping people to make better choices, then that seems like a place to start. If nothing else it would allow individuals, NGO’s and government to target their efforts more efficiently on those areas which are NOT the result of poor choices.

    I’d also recommend that you look at what John Perkins is doing to combat poverty in Jackson MS. His most recent passion is working with young black boys to help them make good choices.

    Another person who you might want to study is Dr. Ben Carson. Not only is he a shining example of how to rise from abject poverty to a high degree of success, but he has written extensively and persuasively about these issues.

    I know you’ll probably write them off as conservatives (and therefore racists), but you would be wrong. Again, spend the time, do the research, don’t just jump to conclusions.

    • It should be noted that the only command given by God as to how the government/ruling authority is to treat the poor is to ensure they have a fair trial.

      All commands to care for and interact with the poor is given to the individual. We, the people, are to care for them, to treat them with dignity, to feed them, to clothe them. It is not the government’s job. It’s the church’s and neighbors.

    • You do not approach the problem with any love at all.

  14. paynehollow says:

    In ancient Israel, there were rules in place (the Sabbath Rules and the Jubilee rules, for instance) that dictated – from a national level – laws designed to meet the needs of the poor, of foreigners and the otherwise marginalized. So, in fact, the Bible does record the equivalent of “federal” rules that required citizens to, for instance, leave their fields partially unharvested; required that landowners allowed the poor to come on to their land and be free to harvest this unharvested set-aside for the poor.

    There were other rules, that’s just one example.

    Just to keep reminding you fellas of reality.

    More on biblical teachings about nations and how they should respond to poverty…

    “Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.”

    ~Psalm 72

    We learn in Ezekiel that Sodom was destroyed NOT because of “the gays,” but because of how Sodom – as a nation – failed to take care of the poor and needy.

    Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

    ~Ezekiel 16

    Over and over in the Bible, we can find prophets condemning nations as a whole for their failure to find some method of taking care of the needs of the poor, including Israel, for failing to implement/put into practice the national laws to protect the poor. Laws that affected individuals, but came from the central State level.

    Clearly, in the Bible, we can see examples of State laws designed to provide for the needy. I’m not saying that we need to implement federal or state laws that demand farmers set aside some portion of their crop for the poor and foreigners, I’m just noting the reality that there were national rules in place and, if we look to the OT/Bible for models or ideas of models on how to do things, we can not rule out federal laws demanding something from individuals to protect the common wealth of all, including and especially the poor.

    Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for [government] is a minister of God to you for good.

    There is nothing in the Bible saying that we can’t collectively work on problems such as poverty. Nothing. In fact, we find examples of gov’t’s doing just that. In reality.

    What is interesting is how you all want to implement literal readings of OT texts when it serves your politcial, cultural agenda, but when those same texts point to realities and ideals that you disagree with, you ignore it or write it off as “just for Israel.” Some consistency might be nice.

    But I don’t really expect too much in the way of consistency from those who are delusional and unable to come to terms with reality. I will insist upon it, anyway, even if it does no good.


  15. “What is interesting is how you all want to implement literal readings of OT texts when it serves your politcial, cultural agenda, but when those same texts point to realities and ideals that you disagree with, you ignore it or write it off as “just for Israel.” Some consistency might be nice.”

    You, of course, would never ever do anything remotely like this. Except always. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase you. What evidence can you provide that these commands as you call them are binding on either The Church or the secular government of the US? How have you determined that THESE commandments are universal? Why would you want the secular government of the US to adopt religious rules? How can these rules be, the Bible is not a rule book. You can’t just cherry pick rules for ancient Israel and expect to apply them to the modern secular government?

    “But I don’t really expect too much in the way of consistency from those who are delusional and unable to come to terms with reality. I will insist upon it, anyway, even if it does no good.”

    Likewise, you don’t provide much consistence, so that’s a wash.

    You also don’t provide much in the was of dealing with points and questions raised by others.

    What gives you the ability to insist on anything? Especially as you are unwilling or unable to meet your own expectations.

  16. paynehollow says:


    You, of course, would never ever do anything remotely like this. Except always.

    Except, never. Which shows just how poorly you understand the words that I write, since I quite clearly consistently say THE OPPOSITE of what you’ve concluded above.


    What evidence can you provide that these commands as you call them are binding on either The Church or the secular government of the US?

    Clearly, these are rules SPECIFICALLY to Israel. I would not advocate implementing these rules “because the Bible says so…” No, the rules/regs I advocate are rules/regs that I think make sense from a purely rational point of view. I do NOT think it a good idea to try to resolve our poverty issues, for instance, by demanding farmers open up their land to the poor and needy. I don’t think that would be an efficient, fair or reasonable approach to dealing with the problems of poverty in 21st Century USA.

    It is a bit goofy to try to implement rules that were in place to an ancient people on a modern society simply because we find those rules in the Bible. Goofy. I would not/do not advocate this at all.

    Do you understand my actual position now? Or is it easier to just delude yourself and presume that your fairy tale takes on my positions represent reality?

    No, the point I make in pointing to OT rules is for YOUR sake, you who say, “but the Bible says…” and try to suggest ancient rules specifically to ancient peoples are reasonably implemented today and ought to be simply because we find them in the Bible.

    I do it to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of your collective approach to Bible and policy and to point out the reality that the Bible does not make any claims that implementing protections/solutions for poverty at the national level is a bad thing – quite the opposite.



    Likewise, you don’t provide much consistence, so that’s a wash.

    It WOULD be, IF you were understanding my position correctly. But you’re not. In reality, my position is consistent and yours, not so much.

    If consistency is important to you, that’s something you might give some thought to.


    • Dan

      People understand you. We say youre inconsistant because you are. On the one hand you offered that splc link as clear evidence the right wing commits violence, yet the splc link did not support any of their citations, they were just offered. When I did the same you rejected my instances because they were unsupported. Do you see why thats hypocritical and inconsistent?

  17. Dan,
    I apologize for suggesting inconsistency on your part. I was wrong. You are incredibly consistent. In this case, you are just consistently missing the fact that everything I’ve said is simply using your own arguments against you.

    Of course, you have also consistently missed the actual point of the post, to be charitable, I’ll say that you may have forgotten.

    Even if one grants that there may be some applicability of your OT proof texts (although I notice that you’ve selectively avoided what the NT has to say as it doesn’t necessarily fit your hunch), nothing you provided supports anything like P-BO care. At best it supports some sort of general help for the general welfare of the poor. Unfortunately, it doesn’t relate to the actual topic of the post.

    Again, you choose to limit your response to only that with which you feel comfortable. There’s plenty of other questions and comments that you’ve chosen to avoid, I wonder why?

    Or you could just demonstrate why the sentiment in the picture posted (you know the actual topic of the post) is somehow correct.

  18. John,

    Of course it’s consistent. Dan asserts a hunch, without support. People disagree with his hunch, he demands that they support their positions. Dan provides some minimal level of support. People point out flaws in his supporting documents. He ignores the flaws and just keeps re stating that he’s provided evidence. He then demands evidence for those who oppose his hunch. Evidence is provided. Dan, ignores or rationalizes said evidence away, while asking for more evidence and making unsupported assertions. More evidence is provided. Dan pops up on another thread, ignores the point of the thread and starts asserting that everyone is delusional.

    As I see it he’s perfectly consistent.

  19. Marshal,

    We’ve argued this issue too many times to count. I simply believe that government has a responsibility to ensure people are provided at least basic, preventative healthcare and catastrophic care. Why? Because I don’t think it’s prudent to have people meandering about with disease that could have been prevented by a simple checkup. I don’t think it’s prudent to have citizens filing bankruptcy because they were in a car accident and “didn’t make the right choices in life” to be a multimillionaire and pay those ridiculous bills from doctors and hospitals.

    Do I think people should get free contraceptives? No.

    Do I think people should get free breast implants? No.

    Do I think people should get free woody pills? No.

    Do I think people should get handouts for nothing? No. If a person is capable of working then they need to get a job before government pays one cent of their healthcare or welfare.

    Is this really objectionable to you?

  20. paynehollow says:


    In this case, you are just consistently missing the fact that everything I’ve said is simply using your own arguments against you.

    No, you’ve tried to use YOUR argument against me, not realizing that I don’t hold your position, all the while ignoring that your argument makes your position inconsistent.

    That is, IF I believed that cherry picked OT rules were evidence supporting us having those same rules today, then you would have a case. But I have consistently noted that OT rules specifically to ancient Israel are specifically, literally NOT rules for us. None of them. Not one.

    You all are the ones that hold that these rules (some of them, not all of them, the right ones, but not the wrong ones, vaguely chosen with no real consistent criteria as to which ones are universal and which ones are not…) specifically to ancient Israel are indications that God wants us to hold these rules for us today, too.

    No, your side’s argument would hold that it’s true that we ought to have federal rules in place to support the poor.

    For myself, I’m simply pointing out a simple fact, not an opinion: OT teachings had rules in place at the federal level that commanded citizens on actions they must take by law to help the poor.

    You know, sort of the very thing that John is condemning in this post.

    And Craig, I don’t answer all your questions because you all clearly don’t seem able to understand the words I’ve written or hold the ability to separate opinion from fact, your hunches from objective reality, so I have tired of addressing the many and varied ways you all are wrong and/or delusional and/or misinterpreting what I’ve actually said.

    I’m just hitting the highlights.

    When you come back to reality and start recognizing basic real world facts, then I might be inclined to answer your mistakes/misunderstandings then. In the meantime, there just ain’t time to address all the silliness.

    Even with this second (or third?) correction of your misunderstanding of my position, I suspect you probably still don’t get why you’re being hypocritical and inconsistent while I’m not.

    What can I do? There’s only so much time in the day.


  21. paynehollow says:

    Here, Craig, I’ll offer you a chance again to understand reality and my actual words, rather than your strawman and delusions. On this post, one point I made was:

    I’m simply pointing out a simple fact, not an opinion: OT teachings had rules in place at the federal level that commanded citizens on actions they must take by law to help the poor.

    1. Do you recognize that THIS above is my point?

    1a. That I’m NOT saying we should implement a rule like the Sabbath rule found in the OT in our day and time?

    1b. That, indeed, I’m saying we ought NOT implement a Sabbath harvesting rule like the one I mentioned? That I’m saying that was a rule to a specific time and place and people and that I don’t believe we ought to lift any rules out of the OT and apply them today, simply because they are found in the OT?

    1c. That my position on rules for us is that we ought to implement rules that make sense for us here and now, that go to serve and promote the common good?

    2. Do you recognize that in the Bible, that Israel, the nation/monarchy (ie, even after Israel ceased to be a theoretical theocracy and became a monarchy), literally did have rules from the national level that told Jewish citizens they HAD to take specific actions – at some cost to the individual – to aid the poor?

    3. Do you recognize my point is merely pointing out that we can find examples in the Bible of federal rules in place at the national level that were, if you look at it that way, very similar to a “forced” tax to “pay” for helping the needy?

    4. As an aside, since you mentioned it, do you recognize that nothing in the NT contradicts this model of federal level rules for helping the poor?

    Just conducting a reality check: I’ve long thought that you were among the closest to not being delusional – just rather combative and disrespectful – here in this conservative community. But you seem to keep playing with non-reality so it’s hard to tell.

    Prove yourself, man.


  22. Ok Dan,

    Don’t answer inconvenient questions. Ignore the point of the thread. Run and hide for all I care. But simply repeating your off topic hunches doesn’t do any good. Yes Israel had rules about the poor, but they’re not analogous to P-BO care or germane to the point of the post. Maybe if you dealt with the actual topic before going of on random tangents it would help. So you can either show some consistency and behave the way you expect others to or not, I don’t really care. But simply regurgitating the same pointless blather seems pointless. Or it seems a good way to dodge questions and problems with your position.

  23. Of course the NT doesn’t come close to supporting the modern welfare state. In fact the NT focuses much more on the Church being the primary vehicle for charity not the government.

  24. Terrance,
    I think you have a point and that we could probably hammer out the details of a plan that would satisfy you and not strike Marshall as too much.

    Where I see the problem is that it is demonstrable that the choices one makes do affect ones economic prospects in a far reaching way. The organization I work for has thousands of people every year that would like to participate in our home ownership program and one of the biggest hurdles they face is bad credit as a result of poor choices.

    I’d argue that in general it’s better for people to work in order to provide for themselves and their families. So, personally, I’d start by trying to deal with the things that we know predict a high likelihood of poverty. Get kids educated, keep them off drugs, Minimize single parenthood, encourage and support marriage. These are the kinds of things that will make a dent in poverty, and will allow people to provide for themselves the kind of health insurance that they choose. Or if they choose to self insure, why should they be stopped?

    The type of policy you seem to be advocating (some level of preventative care and ins for catastrophe) is exactly the type of policy P-BO care wants to eliminate because without shuffling young healthy folks into these ‘Cadillac” plans they can’t afford to make the subsidized “free” plans work.

    It seems like that is the issue John is raising. 1. Stop using Jesus to give cover to liberal big government “charity” and 2. Help people make more good choices and fewer bad choices, are some how being twisted into something else entirely.

    Somehow these two simple concepts seem to make sense as a starting point to make these issues less prevalent.

  25. Jack I B says:

    It seems that it’s at least obvious that bad choices have bad consequences. Is it really controversial that if someone spends time in high school not studying and paying no mind to abstain from certain things that it will have a ripple effect in their life?

    I think John’s statement probably doesn’t include every poor person, just that the majority of poor people, in America at least, could have made different choices and would probably be in a better lot in life.

  26. paynehollow says:

    Sooo, Craig, your answer is, “No, Dan, I do not understand your words or your actual positions and I am confused about reality…”? Good enough.

    Keep working at it, though, you can get there: reality isn’t all that scary once you accept it.


  27. Dan,

    As John said, no one misunderstands you at all.

    Just to point out your flawed misinterpretations again, that God laid down laws for the nations of Israel to follow does not constitute a federal government-like situation, as all those laws were to guide the behavior of the people into a more God-pleasing manner. One way we can see the flaw in your reasoning is the there is not, to my recollection, a punishment for not leaving part of one’s field unharvested for the sake of the poor, as there was a punishment for, say, lying with a man as one would with a woman, or making restitution for the taking of the life of someone’s animal.

    In any case, it’s a major stretch to compare the Laws of God to federal laws of the USA. Yet at the same time, we are compelled by our devotion to God to be charitable by our own volition, not the strong arm of our government. I submit that even the OT laws regarding dealing with the poor were meant to be a matter of personal choice, not state enforced behaviors.

    And of course you can’t help yourself but lie about what Ezekiel 16:49 is saying by not including verse 50, lying, like all pro-homosexual activists/enablers do, that Sodom was destroyed for being inhospitable. And you dare call us delusional! This is especially heinous given verses 46-48.

    As to our adherence to the behavioral decrees of Leviticus, both sexual and otherwise, we have explained how honest people, sincere in their desire to know and please God, can easily determine which laws still apply to Christians today. We’ve done this as many times in response to the many times you dismiss OT teachings as wholly and only for ancient Israel. You’ve simply rejected those sound, logical and truthful explanations because they show your positions to be the heresies they are.

  28. Terrance,

    i>”Is this really objectionable to you?”

    Yes. And here’s why:

    1. It does nothing to alter the behaviors of those who don’t care enough to alter their behaviors themselves. In fact, it allows them to be as careless and carefree with the public’s money to bail them out every time.

    2. It does nothing to truly solve the problem of what can be afforded by the most people. Gov’t getting the hell out of that which they have no Constitutional mandate to do would go a long way toward freeing up the free market to do what it does, which would provide more opportunities for more people at a more affordable cost. Don’t forget that government has exacerbated the difficulties of the free market, making it harder for even those who DO live responsibly.

    What would remain would be those few who truly cannot help themselves along with more people with the means to contribute privately to private charities more able to serve in a more efficient manner.

  29. No Dan,

    My position is that I understand your words. I understand that you choose to pretend that you can ignore questions and dodge when the flaws in your positions are pointed out. I understand that you think it’s not delusional to expect others to behave in ways which you refuse to. I understand that you can’t actually engage in an honest conversation because you’ve decided that everyone but you is delusional. I understand that the flaws in your analogy have been pointed out to you and you seem to be under the delusion that simply ignoring your failed analogy is somehow a rational position. I understand.

    Maybe you could…

    Never mind, if you haven’t chosen to deal with anything but your own meme by now, you probably never will.

  30. 1. It does nothing to alter the behaviors of those who don’t care enough to alter their behaviors themselves. In fact, it allows them to be as careless and carefree with the public’s money to bail them out every time.

    No, it doesn’t. I specifically stated that only those who work could receive help. You can type until your fingers fall off, Marshal, but you won’t escape the fact that medical bills are expensive, so much so that most people cannot afford catastrophic care regardless of what they do for a living.

    And I don’t really understand your second reason at all. Yes, ObamaCare is a massive foul-up. But you act as though the system worked beautifully before and it simply didn’t. A lot of people fell through the cracks.

    But I tell ya, if someone can come up with a plan for private charity to facilitate care for people who need and deserve it, then I’m all for it. If not, then government has a responsibility, in keeping with its duty to promote the general welfare of society, to step-up.

  31. paynehollow says:


    if someone can come up with a plan for private charity to facilitate care for people who need and deserve it, then I’m all for it. If not, then government has a responsibility

    Words of wisdom! Amen.

    If you’re prepared to step up and do the work of charity and justice to meet the needs that exist, step up. If not, get out of the way while the rest of us do so.

    You really can’t complain about others doing the job you’ve been unwilling/unable to do thus far. The job that you all say you SHOULD be doing.

    I’ll say it again: It would be EASY to put the gov’t out of the welfare/healthcare business: Just take over that business for them and make the better system.

    But until such time as “the church” and the private sector is willing and able to do so, get out of our way and close your mouths. We’ve got adult work to do.


  32. Terrance,

    There already existed pools that dealt with things like pre-existing condition. But the more general point is this: Gov’t interference has caused more people to lose their jobs, it has enticed people to stand pat while receiving benefits, and it has done much to cause the rise in health care in the first place. Now, you want to add to that by suggesting the gov’t should cover more people all the time. Won’t work any better than Obamacare, since it is just another form of it.

    Regardless of how health was working before Obamacare, the reasons for the costs were never addressed by it. Throw out Obamacare, go back and look at the reasons cost rose and attack each of them one by one. Costs will go down and go down by natural means of supply and demand.

  33. Dan,

    Your last comment is rank hypocrisy given the fact that you refuse to earn more yourself, thereby having a greater gross income to be taxed for the purpose you believe is best, as well as to have more net for personal contributions to charities of your choice. You instead covet the money of others to do what you yourself won’t do. You’re part of the problem.

  34. Marshal,

    I think it could work better than ObamaCare if government could just stick to the damn basics. Create a simple relief fund for people who need it, etc…Is it likely government could do something like this, so simply? Nope. I’ll admit that. Government is infamous for screwing things up.

  35. paynehollow says:

    For my part, I have neither endorsed nor opposed the ACA. I have mixed opinions about it. Again, I fully support the notion of the private sector coming up with workable solutions. I and my tribe have not come up with any perfect solutions, nor have you and your tribe.

    For my part, then, I’m getting out of the way of people who are trying to solve it.

    So, perhaps I would have been better off saying, “Get out of their way and let them do the work to solve the problems.” At least, when it comes to medical solutions.

    Unless you have a working alternative, I’d suggest the same for you.


  36. paynehollow says:

    “Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.”

    ~Herman Melville

  37. What does he mean by “most” of the criticisms. Ours have been simple and based on absolute truth. Successful people do what unsuccessful people won’t do. There are so many successful people who have written books about how they became successful. There are others who have developed the means by which anyone can also achieve success. Plus, as we have seen above, there have been studies that indicate practices and behaviors that are common to those in poverty. This is far more substantive than mere “criticism”. They are statements of fact. What’s more, they are easily testable.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: