Posted on 08/08/2007 4:09:44 PM PDT by wagglebee
“Can’t handle the truth so you sling the Psalms my way? I can tell you aren’t in Florida, the meltdown state. My Bible’s not readily available. If it were, I could locate plenty of verses about ministering to the ill and caring for those who will not be cured.”
“I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where poisoning the sick is an acceptable practice. Anna Nicole Smith wasn’t a senior citizen but she’s dead, right? She died of a poisoning event too.”
Find me a verse that assigns the task of ministering to the ill to the secular government. You continue to be fixed on salvation through the state, and as long as that fixation remains, the torment of unsatisfied expectation will remain as well.
‘Am I “such people”? Tell me, are you a pro-lifer? I am. I just hate the thought of the government or anyone else deciding my life is futile and murdering me without my permission.’
‘You quote the Bible so maybe you can quote some more passages that discuss when it is ok to kill innocents.’
There are no Scriptures that I am aware of which positively sanction killing innocents. There are also no Scriptures which assign the responsibility of taking care of the ill to the secular state, though there are several assigning that role to the people of God, His congregation, i.e., the church.
Your tagline proclaims “Jesus I trust in Thee”. Jesus says, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’, but do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). He does tell you to trust in Him, not in the blasphemous claims of the modern secular salvation state, which seems to have become you idol. Having illicitly ceded that responsibility to the state, you now are appalled that the state is interpreting its responsibility in a way that amounts to killing the innocent. Why are you surprised at this?
It would be good to repent of this idolatry immediately, and ask God to show you your part in seeking to retract this cession of responsibility to the state and return it to the custody of God’s people, who are to depend on Him, and not the taxing and police power of the secular salvation state to provide the means for caring for the ill and infirm.
LilAngel says:
“You’re courageous! I’d be afraid to abuse God’s Word to promote killing off His most vulnerable creations.”
Please explain how calling God’s people to repent of their illegitimate delegation of the responsibility for caring for the ill and infirm to the secular salvation state and its representatives, and to resume meeting that responsibility themselves, promotes the killing of these individuals? Having turned these individuals over to the tender mercies of the state,to the point where you apparently cannot imagine any other way of dealing with the need, you are now appalled at the results. Why?
Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Since the start of this thread you have engaged in strawman arguments in a effort to push your PRO-DEATH position.
This law has NOTHING to do with paying for medical care and it never has. I don't care for the current Medicare/Medicaid system either, but that's not what this thread is about. This law is about the state allowing doctors to decide that someone's life is "not worth living" and deny them food and water so they die. Should this be allowed? Yes or No.
Let me give you a hypothetical so that you can get beyond your misconception that this is about money. Let's say that I lived in Texas and was in a position similar to Terri Schiavo's. You see my family has A LOT of money, they could keep me in there indefinitely and pay for it out of pocket. Should the hospital be allowed to kill me off because some doctor doesn't like my "quality of life"?
It would be good to repent of this idolatry immediately, and ask God to show you your part in seeking to retract this cession of responsibility to the state and return it to the custody of God’s people,
You are pathetic!
8mmMauser has done more for the pro-life movement than anyone here. He went to Terri's hospice and stood by in prayer as she was being murdered -- NOT YOU.
You can disagree with people all you want but calling someone a blasphemous idolater is disgusting, especially when everything you've posted on this thread indicates that YOU feel that it is acceptable to kill innocent people for "convenience".
NO. YOU explain how putting someone into a hospital is "illegitimately delegating responsibility for caring for the ill and infirm" to the state?
44 For every tree is known by its fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns: nor from a bramble bush do they gather the grape.
45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
46 And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?
Buy yourself a clue. You are in desperate need of them. Quoting the bible does not increase your credibility if you have no understanding of the faith behind it.
Are you a troll? Your attempt to insult does not make it because you have not reached that level of communication.
Matthew 7:6
That is to say, Mt:7:
6 Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.
Actually yesterday I had copied the very same quoted Luke passage into my clipboard ready to use, so still had it at the ready, and this guy clips out a part and uses it. That is funny.
But it happens often enough. People with little true understanding but who want to sound as they do will seek out passages thinking it will support their attacks, but instead, the context just sort of sneaks up on ‘em.
Sometimes people sound smarter when they do not speak or quote.
There are still some people around here who could only sound stupider if they talked more.
Maybe they will. I am all ears and ready for some comic relief.
Luke 6:44-46 is indeed an appropriate extension of the thought in vs 46.
‘NO. YOU explain how putting someone into a hospital is “illegitimately delegating responsibility for caring for the ill and infirm” to the state?’
The answer to this question depends on how the hospital is managed, funded, and governed. Who makes the governing rules, who pays the bills, and who enforces the rules? What state tax funds pay for tends to end up being under the governance and management of the state. Even much of the private funding (e.g., privately funded insurance) tends to end up giving the state more leverage over the practice and management of medical care services under the present system, because the private funds are largely spent in ways which qualifies those who pay (employers) for tax deductions.
Thus, the state tax system both by providing taxed funds directly, and indirectly (through the regulation of qualifications for tax deductions) gains control over medical service management and policy. We are seeing the fruit of that system of providing medical and labor intensive persoanl care services in the various deadly practices which all of us who recognize the importance of valuing human life find appalling, but many, apparently including you, and some of the other posters in this discussion, are oblivious to the connection.
I hope this changes. If you wish to retreive control over the policies, management, and enforcement of policies in medical and labor-intensive personal care services, then you will have to cease delegating the funding of these services to the state, because it WILL end up managing them and controlling enforcement of polices that you abhor, if you don’t.
Clearly that’s a big change, perhaps the work of more than a lifetime (unless the whole system collapses in a fairly short period of time, and we are left to develop a replacement under catastrophic conditions - - -always a possiblity, though hopefully something less drastic will suffice).
Now, now, I already told you to buy a clue and you didn’t.
The heart of this issue is pro-life, not about obfuscation. I just think it is wrong for the government or anyone else to murder innocent patients for any reason. That is pro-life, n’est pas?
Surely you hate as I do that any organization in Texas would croak an innocent regardless of policy. I hope so.
As far as I can tell, you are some sort of anarchist who favors eliminating government altogether. I don’t know where you come up with this nonsense, because it isn’t Christian and it certainly isn’t conservative and Free Republic is after all a conservative and not an anarchist/libertarian forum.
In any event, it still seems that you have no opposition to a doctor or hospital choosing to end someone’s life based upon some arbitrary definition of futile.
‘This law has NOTHING to do with paying for medical care and it never has. I don’t care for the current Medicare/Medicaid system either, but that’s not what this thread is about. This law is about the state allowing doctors to decide that someone’s life is “not worth living” and deny them food and water so they die. Should this be allowed? Yes or No.’
This law, and the system of laws and regulations of which it is a part, has a great deal to do with paying for medical care, because it is the control of payments that has given the state the leverage to compel public acceptance of its authority to tell medical practitioners what they can and can’t do, and to make its telling stick.
‘Let me give you a hypothetical so that you can get beyond your misconception that this is about money. Let’s say that I lived in Texas and was in a position similar to Terri Schiavo’s. You see my family has A LOT of money, they could keep me in there indefinitely and pay for it out of pocket. Should the hospital be allowed to kill me off because some doctor doesn’t like my “quality of life”?’
No, it shouldn’t, and if it determines to do so, then your family’s recourse (unless the state’s control of the funding hasn’t given it so much leverage that it can prevent your family from removing you from the hospital and relocating you to a provider of services who will respond to your family’s wishes) is to relocate you to service providers that will take care of you in the manner that they wish. Apparently, in the case of Terry Schiavo, the state’s reach has indeed extended to that point, right?
In rolling back that hubristic state claim of control over medical services delivery and delivery of labor intensive personal care services, I suspect we are in agreement. Where we differ is in the appropriate means to achieve that end. You apparently think it “has nothing to do with money”. I think that the regulations and enforcement powers that you are so concerned to bend to your way of seeing things have a lot to do with who controls the “payments to the piper”. In the end, ‘he who pays the piper’ will have at least a huge influence over the tune the piper plays. Increasingly, our society has delegated the “source of payments” to the state, and providers of funds who are deemed to receive a subsidy from the state (tax deductibility) and therefore sources of further leverage over service facilities and service delivery practices.
So, the bottom line is that you think that a hospital should be allowed to operate the same way a Burger King does, and that they should have the right to refuse service to anyone or deny further service to someone who is already there. Is this correct? YES or NO.
Are you talking about Medicare/Medicaid? Are you suggesting we should evade our taxes, or are you suggesting our taxes shouldn’t be spent on the services for which they are collected?
There are passages in the Bible which address both of these issues. You probably know the words. Your problem is, you don’t know their meaning. You are like those mentioned in Mark 12:13, hoping to twist God’s Word to serve your master’s purpose. God will not be mocked.
“As far as I can tell, you are some sort of anarchist who favors eliminating government altogether. I don’t know where you come up with this nonsense, because it isn’t Christian and it certainly isn’t conservative and Free Republic is after all a conservative and not an anarchist/libertarian forum.”
“In any event, it still seems that you have no opposition to a doctor or hospital choosing to end someone’s life based upon some arbitrary definition of futile.”
I am a Christian who understands the Scriptural mandate for government (e.g.,as set forth in Rom 13:1-10, and 1 Pet 2:13-17), and certainly not an anarchist (although I am a realist about the nature of human government and its possibilities, as set forth quite well in places like 1 Samuel 8, 1Jo 5:19, and in Augustine’s “City of God”).
You misread me when you say that I have no opposition to physicians killing their patients. On the other hand, there is a difference between killing, and refusing to continue treatments of various kinds. I think that the state should have very limited authority to require physicians or other care givers to perform services.
If we make the state the primary vehicle for paying (or permit it to exercise indirect control over payments) for medical services, however, this will extend its authority practically whether we like it or not.
Got it. You're in the "food and water is treatment" crowd and you think that a hospital should be allowed to cut someone off the same way that a bar does.
If we make the state the primary vehicle for paying (or permit it to exercise indirect control over payments) for medical services, however, this will extend its authority practically whether we like it or not.
The ONLY person here talking about this is YOU. There is no healthcare crisis in this country except the one created by the leftist liberals and libertarians. The overwhelming majority of people have private health insurance. And regardless of what anyone feels about Medicaid and Medicare, it is properly legislated law and to suggest circumventing these programs is a form of anarchy.
This law IS NOT about money, it's about whether or not a hospital has the right to kill people.
“Are you talking about Medicare/Medicaid? Are you suggesting we should evade our taxes, or are you suggesting our taxes shouldn’t be spent on the services for which they are collected?”
Being familiar with the teaching of Rom 13, I pay my taxes, and do not recommend that others not pay theirs. I am suggesting indeed that these ‘entitlement’ systems are a bad idea, and would further suggest that they are illicit extensions of the role of the state. Given their impending insolvency (which is what I think is driving the trend of laws that increasingly mandate or “permit” premature termination of lives) I don’t invest a lot of effort arguing why Medicare/Medicaid are perverse means to a good end. The course of events will make this plain enough for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
“There are passages in the Bible which address both of these issues. You probably know the words. Your problem is, you don’t know their meaning. You are like those mentioned in Mark 12:13, hoping to twist God’s Word to serve your master’s purpose. God will not be mocked.”
God indeed will not be (successfully, indefinitely) mocked. If you know of any Scripture which instructs us to delegate our responsibility for caring for the ill, infirm, and weak to the state, I would be interested in learning about them.
I think you will be hard pressed to find them, but I could be wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.