Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Interesting article which suggest that it may not have been completely independent of federal assistance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-paid-for-romneycare/?utm_term=.052680656d56

 

I wonder what @WillReadmore would say about Romneycare. After all, it is with him that you first started talking about healthcare.

 

Yes, and would you consider this to be a problem?

 

Is that the best you can do, in defence of your libertarian world view?
No explanation of what this "reasoned and rational way" might be?

In any case, "collectivism at more local levels" cannot be divorced from national and international affairs - we are living in a globalised world.

So let's take this slowly.

What is your view of "Human Rights"?

 

Not really interested in it.

 

I'd prefer focusing on taxes and spending, and the 16th and 17th amendments. Fix government first and then allow the people to initiate government spending within their own States as they see fit.

 

'This' being what?

 

Libertarian world view?

Reasoned and rational would be determined by the smaller collectives of people, Vermont, Florida, California, etc.

International affairs would be the responsibility of the Federal government. National affairs would be handled by laws, with any costs handled by the people of each State.

My views are likely quite the opposite of your own.

 

I explained it twice. If the end goal is to feed the hungry, heal the sick, help the poor then obviously there are several options to get it done, and one is to hope people would do it individually, and the other is to fund the government, church or other organizations to get it done. This is why evangelicals supported the Democratic party before abortion became the focal point in US. In other countries Christians still support universal healthcare etc policies.

 

"Reason and rationality", determined by smaller collectives, can only logically deal with issues at that local level.

Does that smaller collective have sole responsibility, or any responsibility, to enact Rights belonging to the individuals in that collective (eg Rights to employment, education, and fair remuneration) ?

You still haven't addressed the issue of Rights of individuals, only Responsibilities of individuals.

I can't respond to this until you explain your understanding of Rights.

 

The point of Jesus' teachings were to "overcome the world as I have overcome". The salvation he offered was not bought with gifts or deeds of charity. It had to come from a place much deeper than that. So no amount of giving and doing by the rich or the poor would be sufficient. Generosity couldn't buy it. Overcoming the world is not the result of anything that can be done with things of this world. One must remove themselves from it entirely while walking in it. And rich or poor, Jesus surely did challenge those who had an ear to hear to overcome.

 

Well now. We have total and complete agreement on that.

 

Oh sure, Jesus challenged everybody, but I thought that you were talking about challenging on the basis of wealth.

 

You haven't explained how Matthew 25 supports taking away people's money and giving it to others.

 

This:

Is this a problem which needs a solution?

 

Well, your claim that RomneyCare happened without the federal government is dubious. You certainly have no evidence for it.

 

I have explained my point times now, but now your question is turning into a straw-man. I understand you have a political disagreement with it, and I am not promoting any particular way of helping people as per Matt 25, I am just saying there are more than one way of accomplishing it (individually or by funding organizations like church, government or other agencies). Like I said, Evangelicals supported Dems for that very reason until Roe vs Wade popped up. The enemy smiles seeing Christians divided over politics.

 

Just reading posts on this political forum alone, it would appear to be.

 

Then you or another are free to begin a thread topic and discuss it, I really don't care.

 

No, YOU were talking about challenging on the basis of wealth. I responded.

 

Yes, but you were the one who first started the discussion between us about what Jesus said to rich people. You were responding to a post that I sent in reply to another member. Right here:

 

And your solution would be?

 

Initially, repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments.
But if you're an Australian citizen, I'm not interested in pursuing conversation about it with you, nor would I care to discuss Australian government with you.

 

Then it is very strange that you mentioned Matthew 25 in support of tax for social benefit.

 

I'll unsubscribe from this thread as well since I have no voice in Australian government.