Jinger Jarrett #fundie

Jinger Jarrett #fundie blog.101christian.com

[Why healthcare is evil]

1. In order to fund health care, the government will have to take from those who work hard and give it to those who don’t. You can call it anything you want, but it’s stealing, and stealing is wrong, a sin. God hates sin, and He won’t tolerate it much longer.

2. The Founding Fathers considered government to be evil. They didn’t want to give us anymore government than necessary. So, they didn’t. They also rejected the principles of the Enlightenment, something in my opinion, is one of the darkest periods in history. There was nothing “enlightening” about it at all. It’s the same secular humanism that liberals are passing around today.

290 comments

old comment by Mister Spak

1. In order to bail out billionaires, the government will have to take from those who work hard and give it to those who don’t. You can call it anything you want, but it’s stealing, and stealing is wrong, a sin. God hates sin, and He won’t tolerate it much longer.

2. The Founding Fathers considered religion to be evil. They didn’t want to give us anymore religion than necessary. So, they didn’t. They also rejected the principles of the Dark Ages, something in my opinion, is one of the darkest periods in history. There was nothing “enlightening” about it at all. It’s the same christianist superstition that conservatives are passing around today.

Fixed.

old comment by John

In order to fund health care, the government will have to take from those who work hard and give it to those who don’t.

There are only two alternatives when someone needs medical care: (1) they either get the care and somebody pays for it, or (2) they don't and are left to suffer and die. No civilized country chooses (2). The US doesn't, either, and never has. So we've been paying for medical care for the indigent for decades, in the form of higher prices for hospitals, medicine and health insurance.

God hates sin

Read the NT. What did the Good Samaritan do? What did Jesus tell the youth who asked him "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" He said "If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor". So what makes paying for medical help for people who can't afford it a sin?

old comment by tmarcl

1. In order to fund health care, the government will have to take from those who work hard and give it to those who don’t.

Interestingly enough, "hard work" doesn't always equal "sufficient income." There are people who work two jobs that have to live out of a car.

You can call it anything you want, but it’s stealing, and stealing is wrong, a sin. God hates sin, and He won’t tolerate it much longer.

Really? 'Cause he's been tolerant of it for an extremely long time (like, millenia). His own son even commanded his followers to pay their taxes at least twice.

2. The Founding Fathers considered government to be evil. They didn’t want to give us anymore government than necessary.

I'm not sure they considered it "evil." They didn't want a strong central government, but they didn't say anything about state governments. They were more concerned with people who didn't live in a region making decisions for those people.

They also rejected the principles of the Enlightenment,

Quite the opposite, in fact. It was the principles of the Enlightenment that drove them. Thus, we have a secular republic instead of a monarchy. (Note: I realize it's now called a "democracy", but I can't stand that term in relation to our form of government. It creates too much confusion).

in my opinion, is one of the darkest periods in history

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Keep in mind, however, that it's those same principles that you decry that are responsible for you a) being allowed to have your own opinion and b) being allowed to state it in a public forum. Back before the Enlightenment, stating an opinion that differed from the state or the church could get you killed.

old comment by Passerby

You pay health insurance companies obscene amounts of money on a monthly basis, more than 20x what is typically taken off taxes in Canada or Britain, and MAYBE they'll cover a PORTION of your treatment assuming they can't tie your claim up in court until you succumb to your injuries if you've been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Where do you frigging think your HMO gets the money when they have no choice but to pay the doctor? It's not just your money that covers the doctor's fees, it's from every other policy holder that didn't have the misfortune of landing in the hospital at that point in time. When you're healthy you are paying for everyone else. When you're sick, everyone else is paying for you, and then the cost of your policy gets jacked up in retaliation.

How is that any different from the WORST POSSIBLE CASE SCENARIO WHERE EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT - WHO TAXPAYERS CAN THEORETICALLY *FIRE* UNLIKE A CORPORATE PHYSICIAN EXECUTIVE - IS INEXPLICABLY OUT TO SCREW YOU OVER WITH UNREALISTICALLY CARTOONISH EXTREME PREJUDICE?

You know where your money goes when you pay an HMO? Payroll, marketing, and lobby groups. If a doctor sees fifty cents for issuing a bandaid it's posted as a loss. By definition a for-profit venture will avoid this by any means neccessary.

You want to know what the extent of government involvement in a typical Public Healthcare system is? Budget expenditures. Payroll. That is IT. In all my trips to the hospital the only time I've ever run into a government beauracrat is in the overnight wing, where the suit in question was himself recovering from a severe dog attack.

And guess what else chuckles? Even if you don't care for how other countries spend their tax dollars, (notably without imposing martial law or racking up a fraction of the US national debt,) you could implement the system with any number of checks and balances to prevent abuse.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"1. In order to fund health care, the government will have to take from those who work hard and give it to those who don’t. You can call it anything you want, but it’s stealing, and stealing is wrong, a sin. God hates sin, and He won’t tolerate it much longer."

Wasn't it Jesus who told you to sell all of your shit and give the money to the poor?

Wasn't it Jesus who healed the sick and lame and wanted nothing in return?

"2. The Founding Fathers considered government to be evil."

Obviously. That's why they fought a war in order to break away from tyrannical English rule in order to set up an Anarchist utopia with no government to be found.

Or, you know, they didn't and, instead, set up their own form of government and based damn near all of the legal system on English law.

"They didn’t want to give us anymore government than necessary. So, they didn’t."

They wanted to limit the power of the government, not necessarily the size of it.

"They also rejected the principles of the Enlightenment, something in my opinion, is one of the darkest periods in history."

Holy fuck. You can't be serious.

The Enlightenment is what influenced the Constitution in every way from its original concept to the final wording you ignorant jackass.

"There was nothing “enlightening” about it at all."

Nothing at all. Except for all of that social, political and philosophical progress, scientific advances and general bettering of the human condition as a whole.

"It’s the same secular humanism that liberals are passing around today."

And?

old comment by Passerby

Okay, pay close attention now because this is incredibly important. YOU CAN DESIGN YOUR OWN GODDAMNED SYSTEM TO YOUR FUCKING LIKING. Is that so hard to grasp? You decide how much control to give the government. In a Democracy, they answer to YOU.

If you think the government is going to take the stance that the almighty dollar is more valuable than your life, just think for a second about just how much less than THAT your life is worth to an entity specifically in it for the money. An entity that regularly bribes the government to reduce the amount of oversight it has on itself, and can effectively rule your life in a way the government can't and you don't think to complain because it is not government.

Let's re-examine your claims of theft now shall we? If your taxes pay for your healthcare, you are giving money and recieving a service. If you pay an HMO money and they can't escape their contractual agreements, they will pay for some of your services but make sure you suffer for it so they can recoup the expenses. If you give an HMO money and they escape their contract or find a reason to drop you, then they have taken your money and rendered no services.

The Industry makes it's money, specifically, by not rendering a service. That is theft and considering the necessity of medical services it is also extortion.

old comment by Passerby

I work hard for my money. My tax dollars ensure that if I'm shot in the stomach tomorrow afternoon paramedics will take me to a hospital that will treat me as soon as a doctor can scrub up and the Police will find the asshole that shot me and put him behind bars.

Let's say you get shot. You work hard for your money, and your tax dollars will... Um. Yeah. They won't be paying for your ambulance ride. Your insurance will have to clear before your hospital will decide how much it can spend on you, assuming your hospital is in your HMO's network. If it's not, then the doctors are not permitted to operate on you. (So much for that old yarn about choice of doctor.) Then after life-saving surgery is done, your HMO will increase your rate and reassess your risk factors, possibly finding a way to hold you personally responsible for your injuries thereby escaping any payment responsibility. In the meantime, you will have to cover whatever other expenses were incurred. Hopefully, your injuries are not so severe as to make an immediate return to work a life-threatening gamble and you've got some savings that will support you until... oh. Out of pocket treatment wiped your bank account out entirely, huh? Luckily, the police - paid for courtesy of the evil government - will hunt down the asshole that shot you and put him behind bars. Maybe you can sue him to recoup the thousands of dollars he has just cost you. That is, if you can find a lawyer you can afford and haven't declared bankruptcy like nearly every working class stiff who ends up in that situation.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

I would advise you to read this:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=80344&Page=1

Specifically my comment near the bottom of that page.

What I said about (and to) Jinger especially applies to you. As I challenge him here in FSTDT (and on that blog), so I challenge you:

Care to answer that question?

PROTIP: As in Jinger's case, think very carefully before you answer. After all...

I wouldn't want to figure you would run away from that question.

...oh, and for good measure, Matthew 19:21.

Your call.

--EDIT--

And I notice that Jinger has locked me out of his blog. Whassamatter? Can't take a little criticism of your 'opinion' - especially from someone who doesn't think like you do eh, buddy-boy? And you're the reason why Americentricism should be a crime - which he should be punished for (by being forced to learn about the wider world as a whole - and it's differing attitudes, certainly to healthcare, and how such is provided in countries outside the US) eh, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer?

Ignorance. That's the real sin.

Anyhoo, as I was about to reply (before Jinger censored me - unlike our esteemed admin here in FSTDT, Distind; see? We allow free & open discussion! Ergo, the more than infinite superiority of Atheism. QED.): UK-style NHS-esque healthcare now exists in the US. Deal with it.

old comment by Passerby

Not to detract from your argument Anon-E-Moose, it is made from the substance of 'Epic Win' and would give pause to any reasonable man of faith, but Erik is not a reasonable man. He will not contemplate matters of his faith in terms outside of God automatically agreeing with his every word.

This man has literally denied he said something, then when shown his own words and called a liar for denying them could not make the mental connection before re-embracing the previously denied claim. If your goal is nothing more complicated then making the man look like a fool before us then you will certainly accomplish it. If your goal is to make him realize he's a fool, or simply that he is wrong about anything in life then you will not move that stone without LITERALLY having God on your side.

Matthew 5:38 all the way to 5:48, if you want more ammunition. Already though, this is a curbstomp battle of the wits and not in Brewer's favour.

You can point to every example of Jesus telling his followers to give freely of themselves - even to strangers and sinners - but it will not register. And that's from the biblical perspective. If you were to bring up political matters you'd be met with an unending stream of spin and falsehoods he believes with the same fervor as the Bible whose verses he will deny.

If you wish to make the point to him, save yourself the headache. If it's for entertainment purposes only... I'll get some popcorn.

Edit:

Ignorance is the real sin? Either you got to stop stealing my lines or I've got to find you and buy you a beer. Although Obama's compromise (set to take place after his term ends) is a far cry from the NHS. It simply removes restrictions for insurance applicants with pre-existing conditions. It does not mean they won't be royally ripped off and it's been suggested to me (I cannot confirm) that policy holders could still be dropped on the basis of having them.

I think of it like DADT of healthcare: Retarded beyond redemption, built on placation but pleasing nobody and fooling just enough people to stand. The Industry will still hold all the cards, but the 'gubmint' is still going to get all the blame. Much of it will be deserved if this was the best they could do.

old comment by Swede

Health care is funded with tax-money over here, which means that EVERYONE helps to pay, as almost EVERYONE needs some kind of medical attention sooner or later.
Jesus would probably like that, there are several instances in the Bible where he punishes the arrogant ones and helps the unfortunate ones.

The US of A was built on the foundation of Enlightenment, stupid! Otherwise you would have had a theocracy, like the countries back in Europe.
The "Enlightenment" is dark? Guess the Dark Ages was bright and cheerful, then.
Forcing everyone to believe in the same way and killing those who refuse is good, but reason and search for knowledge is bad?

old comment by

What dunces like our pal Jinger don't realize is that they're already being "stolen from" because everybody suffers from the cost increases of uninsured ER visits. People without insurance can't easily get regular checkups, which are great at catching problems early when they're easily treatable and a hell of a lot cheaper to fix than the ER in the end. Seriously, which alternative is better: uninsured guy at death's door from a serious infection getting treated at the hospital and skipping out on the ridiculous bill which is then passed to consumers, or said dude paying a piddly copay to see his trusty doc, having some antibiotics prescribed, and going on his way? I mean of course, a so-inclined conservative asshole would probably argue that he somehow deserved it because he was "lazy" or had some other personality defect, but it still stands that only an idiot wouldn't understand that millions more people having access to better preventative medicine would save a ton of money in the long run.

Why so many people apparently prefer our patchwork system of private for-profit insurers, many of whom are mired more deeply in their own bureaucratic waste and systematic incompetence than any conservative caricature of "big government" could possibly depict, to anything else just defies any reasonable explanation. I mean this thing that those political science types tend to refer to as "the rest of the fucking free world" has somehow figured it out and they're kicking our ass at it.

old comment by Passerby

Oh, poor Erik. Can't win an argument to save your soul now can you? Jesus asked nothing in return for his kindess, not even devotion. He encouraged others to follow suit. THAT was the point.

Luke 13 through 16 are parables of Jesus pointing out the follies of men holding themselves above eachother by means as cheap as wealth or as self-contradictory as righteousness. Their slavery to sin as you described stemmed from being JUST LIKE YOU! Standing in perpetual judgement. You're right about one thing, though. If the scripture is to be believed then Jesus was not trying to heal everyone: he was trying to make them help eachother unconditionally so he wouldn't have to do it himself.

The example involving healing was to demonstrate that the priests of the temple at the time were so arrogant that they would refuse services to people they believed had sinned or were otherwise unworthy in their eyes.

My favorite part would be Jesus displaying indignance and borderline disgust at the priests' shock when he performed a healing on the Sabbath, the day of rest and worship. By holy commandment, no labour was to be performed on this day. In following this commandment literally, the very church had abandoned the compassion that God taught. Guys like you missed the point completely and decided to bump the Sabbath to Sunday instead of the old Jewish Saturday as a sleight.

Parable after parable, Jesus would attempt to convince his followers to cast off whatever it was they used as a means to hold themselves above their neighbours. Wealth, position, inheritance, all claims to power. By this act of self-sacrifice they would better understand the neglected and free the hoarded power to be used by all who need it.

Sounds a lot like Marx when you cut through the bullshit tacked on after the rise of Lenin and the descent of Stalin. You'd argue that of course, quite poorly. But then again I could fill an entire library with what you don't know on the subjects of history, politics, or philosophy.

Okay now I'll admit it. I'm baiting you with the Marx comment. Watching you flounder about like a fish out of water is morbidly fascinating.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

Jesus was a carpenter. He worked for a living when He was not ministering to the people. Should all people who produce a product just “give it away”? What about the money to produce the product, where does that come from?

I am not looking down on anyone. Helping others get out of their slavery to sin is the most important need for mankind. Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and he can feed himself for the rest of his life. Helping and handouts are 2 different things. Will I help a drunk if I give him money to buy more? Helping him overcome his addition (slavery to sin) to alcohol would be the best thing that I could do for him (that is what I do, btw).

If you would actually read the Bible for yourself instead of relying on what “others” say about the Bible, then you would know that Jesus healed people to open the door to sharing the Gospel with them (and the crowds who gathered around). I am sure that you missed that point though.

The healing on the Sabbath demonstrated to the Sadducees and Pharisees (non Christians) that they cared more about animals than people. Again, a healing is done to open the door for teaching (the Gospel).

I do not hold myself above my neighbor. I work with my neighbor on a daily basis. Jesus needed money just like everyone else. He was not rich but He was not poor either. Although, He did not have a home. He did work with people who also had careers (fishermen), as He Himself had a profession (carpentering).

The Bible does not promote communism or marxism, please see this article (http://erikbrewer.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/does-the-bible-promote-communism/)

I foresaw your cheap baiting (you guys are all the same) and already had an answer which I am sure you will not debate.

old comment by

Actually, Erik is giving us an interesting case study on the juvenile vs. adult mindset here. Grownups, when confronted with a major problem, realize what they have to do: research, talk to people who have been through similar things, accumulate knowledge, perhaps vent their sadness and anger in a healthy way, and ultimately confront it head-on. Children (or manchildren like our Christian pal, Erik) think that an all-powerful imaginary friend will fix everything for them.

After all, bad things never happen to good people, and anyone who suffers probably did something to deserve it, like having a "bad attitude" about their diabetes. Either that or it's a test from God, who takes particular pleasure in tormenting his beloved earthly children to see how long it takes before they snap and he gets to damn them to hell for all eternity. Jesus loves you!

old comment by TWoozl

@Erik

"Any uneducated bum on the street can swear. One would think that an educated person would not speak like an uneducated bum on the street. Just a thought."

One would also think that when asked for factual points, one wouldn't keep shying away from them. Hardly what I'd call appropriate intellectual behavior. And really now, profanity is profane simply because moralistic individuals decided they didn't have enough to get upset about.

I'll ask you a third time before relegating you to the idiot bin: Provide peer-reviewed, vetted and factual data supporting your point of view. If you can't do this, you have no leg to stand on intellectually.

Prove yourself smarter than the street bum; I'd fairly wager I am more intelligent than the poor fellow you've unfortunately dredged up in an attempt to dodge the actual question (twice now). You? Go ahead, establish it beyond doubt.

Facts. Hard facts. Support your view. Now. I'm asking a third time, Erik darling.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

“think that they can wish away bad things”
Where have I written anything like this? Give some proof to your empty words.

You can mock God all that you want, just remember this convo when you stand before Him. Also, check out what happens to mockers (http://erikbrewer.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-dangers-of-being-a-mocker/)

Bad things do happen to good people, that is life. God has promised to work all things (even the bad) for the good of those who love Him (not mocking Him). Just because you do not believe something, that does not make it any less true. Bad attitudes do have an effect on your overall health. Being angry and frustrated all the time, does have a negative influence on your health.

old comment by TWoozl

@Erik

I've asked you three times to provide hard data supporting your view on health care. A peer-reviewed study, vetted by actual sociologists and health care professionals. Something to refute the examples of Canada, the United Kingdom and all other nations with socialized health-care, the root of the topic at hand. Your remarks about profanity are non-sequitor, you are without basis, and you are still frankly a fucking moron. My willingness to sharpen my words does not make me any less intelligent, it simply means I'm less willing to bind myself to archaic and obsolete notions of an all-observant creator who is more interested in profane language than perhaps, AIDS.

You are a hypocrite, you are a liar, and you have no grounding in reality. Please get one. Swiftly. If I were theistic, I would mutter some thank-you prayer to the invisible Sky Daddy about how grateful I am to not live in the United States. I am not. I am grateful that my political forefathers were intelligent enough to acknowledge that health is a cornerstone of civilization.

Fourth and final request: Provide peer-reviewed facts supporting your view, Erik. Your debate technique thus far is unacceptable even in elementary venues.

old comment by Passerby

We're not mocking God, FOOL. We are mocking YOU.

Learn the difference before Jesus takes issue with you confusing yourself for him.

Asked for evidence all you have to offer is your opinions. Your pat responses have been thus far: "The bible says so." "I already proved myself." and "Everybody knows that."

Given arguments from rational talking points, you defer to the bible. Given a direct quote from the bible that doesn't match your opinion, you resort to what you think is common knowledge, ask what you base this knowledge on, you link to another of your rants that starts right back at the beginning of this chain.

The entire time you offer false pity and heartfelt insults. You don't do any of this for any reason other than you believe it gets you on God's good side, but it doesn't help that you're mistaking yourself for God when people disagree with you.

The Bible, and the last several pages of quotes from it that we've dropped in your lap in particular, caution against false and backhanded rightousness. It is said that we will know God's opinion by the fruits of our labours.

Yours leave people in tears or reaching for Aspirin. Hopefully ours will see people with a new lease on life.

old comment by TWoozl

@Erik

"I have not made any arguments for or against health care. I just said that Jesus' ministry was not to provide health care. I am not sure what you want of me."

You claim to speak for Jesus and God as a minister; These opinions as you have personally interpreted them, are your own to defend. Do so. You have not adequately defended why people need to die for your non-objective opinion based on the tenets of a single faith; This makes you worse than evil in my eyes. I said it: You have an opinion that leads to death. If you're pro life, that's even more icing on the hypocrite cake.

"You can drop the attitude, I am not your enemy. Maybe you hate me but I do not share the same feelings. I am well educated so you can also drop those personal attacks."

I despise you, I will not drop the attitude, and I will make one thing very clear to you. You are the kind of person who needs to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, before you attempt to drag the rest of society down with outdated notions and jingoistic nonsense based upon a textbook that fails to even get basic biological concepts right. Before you even think of opening your mouth on that, the Bible states cases of Lamarckian evolution (Goats mating before a ringed reed bearing striped young), factual fallacies about insect life (Leviticus, on not eating 4 legged flying things), and other nonsense (The flood; Incest and massive inbreeding within one to three generations, flying in the face of Franklin and Soule's proven 50/500 rule regarding genetic diversity).

Having a theology degree does not make you educated. Please state what actual secular degree you have, in healthcare, and sociology, before you presume to pass judgement on healthcare and sociology.

old comment by TWoozl

@Erik

Perhaps you'd actually care to provide factual evidence, not shameless self advertisement. Invented evidence is not evidence, and arguments from your own persona are in very poor form when you're actually attempting to persuade someone they're wrong. It bears about as much intellectual weight as slamming your hand on a piece of paper that you've written, stating "X is true". It's true because I said it's true, and here's your proof: I said it's true and it's written here.

That does not compute. All you're doing here is demonstrating exactly why atheists are not Christians, owing to their drive for answers and not feelings.

Provide factual backing for why you are right. Do not self reference. Once again:

Objective, peer reviewed documentation. Prove yourself. We aren't going to take it on faith.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

I do not speak for God. He has already spoken in His Word. I have brought the message. You problem is with Him, not with me. I do not hold your attitude toward me against you. Jesus warned of you and people like you long ago. You are behaving just as He said you would. It is the way that you are.

“You have not adequately defended why people need to die for your non-objective opinion based on the tenets of a single faith”

Where did I write this? I really believe you have confused me with someone else.

Pro-life is pro-death??? That is quite irrational if you ask me.

I am sure you would love to do the “dragging” but as I said, your attitude and opinion is nothing new, Jesus spoke of you long ago.

When and where have I passed judgment on health care and sociology??? I really think you have me confused with someone else.

I feel like you are going to invite me to a peeing contest in a moment. Sorry dude but I left 1st grade a long time ago.

old comment by

Drax

@ErikBBrewer

Firstly, just to make it clear where I stand, let me set out my position on Jesus. I’m pretty certain that Jesus was a real historical person. I don’t believe that he was the son of God, that he was born of a virgin or that he had magical powers, but I think it very likely there was a real Jesus of Nazareth and that at least some of his teachings have been handed down to us.

Now, whether you believe Jesus was the son of God or not, his message seems to be pretty clear to me. The way we achieve spiritual and moral growth is through our relationships with other people and how we treat them. It isn’t about just professing belief in some doctrine or going through some arcane rituals and counting yourself as saved’. If we believe the Bible, Jesus mocked the Pharisees for just that sort of behaviour. Well, it seems to me that a lot of modern day Christians (not all) are much like those Pharisees. They go to church, they profess belief in the doctrine, they go through the rituals and mumbo-jumbo. But they care a lot more about their own bank accounts than about their fellow human beings. They have very little compassion and empathy, especially not for those that aren’t exactly like them.

Jesus’ primary ministry’ may not have been to provide healthcare, but he did teach that the strong should help the weak, that the people with money and resources should help those in need. I fail to see how social healthcare is fundamentally at odds with that message.

old comment by Passerby

Okay. We are going to spell it out very, very simply. I will provide a step-by-step procedure for advancing this argument.

You have stated your opinion that Jesus would be against universal healthcare. We have assumed you use the bible as your source material and have provided points we belive contrary to your stance.

Jesus asked no payment. Jesus cared not if those he healed were wealthy or poor. Jesus cared not if those he healed were of his flock. Jesus cared not if the man he healed was in fact a sinner. He was joyed when sinners would repent, saddened when they would not, and either way would continue to heal anyone who came to him. This is all related to Jesus's role in the bible as a healer, and temple-controlled faith healing is about the closest analogy to the health industry we're going to get.

Now you have multiple choices. You can:

Choose a quote from the Bible that portrays Jesus personally denying someone care for any reason, or telling a physician or priest to turn someone away. This will be difficult.

Choose a quote from the Bible that portrays Jesus rebelling against government control, which will also be difficult as he oddly recognized Roman authority even with the myriad abuses.

Additionally, you could offer an alternate interpretation of the quote to explain some kind of ulterior motive for what seems to be selfless acts. I'm pretty sure that would be heresy though.

Attempt to piece together a non-religious argument that explains why it's immoral for people to pool together their money in a common fund to care for the sick.

Attempt to piece together a non-religious argument that explains why any government or civillian agency would be unable to handle a single payer healthcare program.

Attempt to piece together a non-religious argument that demonstrates why the current system is adequete.

Come on. Multiple choice now.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

@ Drax

“The way we achieve spiritual and moral growth is through our relationships with other people and how we treat them”

That is not what Jesus taught. That would be earning your salvation. Jesus taught that you must be born again (changed from the inside out in a spiritual sense, exchanging your sinful character for the character of God) then, with this transformation, you will be able to love your neighbor as yourself. If you have a relationship with God then it will be seen in your relationships with others. Yes, you will help the people around you (do not confuse help with handout).

“He did teach that the strong should help the weak”
Is the strong helping the weak with federally funded abortions? (who is the weaker, the baby being murdered or the doctor with the knife in hand, maybe it is the mother who allows it to happen).

old comment by Drax

@ErikBBrewer

But how does one get to be 'born again'? By simply having some dude pour water down your neck? No. By coming to the realisation that your fellow human beings are your brothers and sisters. Simply helping the poor because you think God will punish you if you don't would indeed be trying to 'earn your salvation'.

You're going off at a tangent with the abortion thing. But if you want my personal view on it, I don't like abortion, but I realise it's sometimes necessary for medical reasons. If there aren't any medical reasons for it, then I definitely don't like it. But I also realise that it isn't my decision to make. I have no moral right to tell a woman what she must do with her own body, even if I don't agree with her decision.

old comment by Passerby

Ah there we go. I caught the argument midway through, where you were telling Anon-E-Moose that Jesus wasn't in the 'business' of healing people. With that in mind it was an easy mistake. You never bothered to clarify it though. However, you've been making statements to that effect since then with the odd non-sequitor into different subjects, so it's actually still unclear. Would you like to clarify your personal stance on healthcare now or continue making communism and abortion references? Or *is* your stance that healthcare is communism in which case you really did say Jesus is against public healthcare rendering your counterpoint invalid, but still slightly better than the crap you've slung thus far.

old comment by

I am so glad that you asked that question. No, it has nothing to do with water being poured over your head. Read John 3 to see what Jesus says http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/john/3.html

1)Confess your sins (agree with God that you are a sinner, His ways are correct and yours are not)
2) Repent of your sins (turn away from them)
3) Believe the Gospel (Jesus came and died in your place for your sins, He resurrected to give you freedom from the power of sin, and He is coming again to judge the world)
4) Follow Jesus Christ every day of your life

Salvation will come, and you will transformed. You will have the desire and the ability to love your neighbor as yourself (many on this site do not have that ability, obvious by the hatred of me).

"to tell a woman what she must do with her own body, even if I don't agree with her decision."

Do you have the right to choose if a person lives or dies?

old comment by Drax

I've read the Bible before, thanks. I'm an ex-Christian. No point trying to reconvert me.

See, I think that's where Christianity went wrong. It took a simple, straightforward message of peace, love and brotherhood, and mixed it up with all kinds of superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

I don't think Jesus would care about most of my 'sins'. I think he would strongly disapprove if I were a selfish greedy bastard who treated people like shit, though. Not saying I'm a saint or that I never act selfishly - far from it - but I do try to treat people as I would want to be treated.

I don't have the power to decide who lives and who dies. If you're talking about a foetus, a foetus isn't a person. It's a potential person, and if the choice were mine, I would generally prefer to let it become a person - but the choice is not mine.

old comment by Passerby

And of course, rather than clarify his position after indignantly claiming he never said what we've gathered from his statements thus far The Incredible Regenerating Straw Man appears to have opted for the abortion non-sequitors.

You couldn't even take the argument I laid at your damned feet for the sole purpose of giving you a chance to make a point could you? You could have gotten me to say "You're right, I appear to have put words in your mouth this time around." saving some of your dignity and setting the stage for your argument on the actual issue being quoted.

But no. No sir you chose to taunt instead continuing a recursive loop of circular anti-logic without having said one damned thing when it counted. And call me crazy but I think that's just the way you like it!

Edit: I officially Christen thee TIRSM. Go forth, The Incredible Regenerating Straw Man, go forth and backpedal in directions the WonkaVator could not match.

old comment by TWoozl

@Erik

Given your demonstrable lack of critical thinking skills, I will spell it out for you:

You are pro-death for your views on health care, which in one minute you state are not your own, yet in the next, you state are in line with those of Jesus. Uncaring about an adult human being, while forcing a child to be born to a mother that may or may not be able to support it, in a climate which you harden even further against them, by denying health care as a basic human right. The next statement you make ("I do not speak for God. He has already spoken in His Word. I have brought the message."), clinches it: You are against providing health care to those who are unable to provide it for themselves. And abortion? It's entirely a straw man regarding federally funded health care; No fetus aborted under the law of any state is able to survive outside of its mother, save in exceptionally rare, medically mandated and gravely considered cases, where the presence of the fetus will endanger the life of both the mother and itself. One death, grave as it is, is outweighed by the severity of both.

Minimum wage here in my province is $8.50 an hour. Rent averages $800 for a one bedroom apartment in this city. After taxation, minimum wage garners $1250, give or take. That's $450 after shelter, devoted to living expenses. The situation in Washington state is similar, the highest minimum wage in the United States, at $8.67. $450 is inadequate to pay for basic living expenses on, and rental rates in Washington state are somewhat comparable to here in any metropolitan center.

You somehow believe that working harder is the solution; The figure above assumes a 37.5 hour mandated work week of 5 eight hour working days, on a full time job. It is inadequate to feed, clothe, transport and shelter a human being. How precisely do you expect someone at these rates to cope with $200-$300 in health care premiums monthly, or perhaps the $30,000 surgery they may have to undergo if they have a coronary.

You, are out of touch with reality, and spending far too much time with your head wrapped around the myth of an individual who may or may not have ever existed, Erik. Gather some empathy for your fellow human beings.

old comment by dionysus

@ErikBBrewer

"I'm an ex-Christian"
There is no such thing, sorry to have to inform you of that. You never really were one to being with (the Bible teaches on this).

And I'm sorry to inform you that I've heard this argument made a million times and it doesn't become any more valid the million and first. It's like a business that loses investors saying to the other investors "What do you mean? They were never our investors!" to save their own ass (or gluteus maximus if the *gasp* curse words offend you). Until someone can provide a definition of a True (TM) Christian, that reaches a consensus and thus becomes a useful phrase for communicating a clear and coherent idea it's no more useful than the Creationist "kinds" or the word "gizzlefraux" which I just made up. So unless you can provide a definition of Christianity that actually means something I'll stick with the one that most people agree with and that's a believer in the existence and divinity of Jesus. Under this standard and meaningful definition there certainly is such a thing as an ex-Christian. Give us some meaningful and objective metric to distinguish a True (TM) Christian from a false one and then you might have some basis to declare that other people were never True (TM) Christians.

You can mock God all that you want, just remember this convo when you stand before Him.

I find it utterly amusing that you have a problem with four letter words and yet have no qualms with issuing posthumous threats, and they're threats that you have absolutely no evidence of. It's an odd standard to hold as you can say the most profane things without using a single taboo word and you can say the most loving things using the "dirtiest" words. Compare these two for example:

"You are inhuman slime that does not deserve to draw another breath"
vs
"Honey, you're fucking amazing."

A precision F strike (as seen above) can even add an element of excitement and genuineness to what would otherwise sound like a stock phrase. Words are tools and like any tool they must be used properly for maximum effect.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

“Given your demonstrable lack of critical thinking skills, I will spell it out for you”
That is hilarious since you go on to say that I have pro-death views on health care (where did I write that?) I do like some proof besides your empty words.

Where did I say that I do not care about adult human beings? Please show some proof. I have never forced any child to be born. I am pretty sure nature takes care of that.

Health care and “free” health care are 2 different things. We all need health care, I do not argue against that.

Where did I say that I am against providing health care for those who cannot provide for themselves??? I am still waiting for some proof.

I am against federally funded abortion because I do not agree with abortion and I do not feel that I should be forced to pay for people to have abortions. If you want to murder a baby, pay for it yourself (nobody paid for you to have sex to get pregnant or impregnate someone)

You wrote “No fetus aborted under the law of any state is able to survive outside of its mother”
Check the news, as I recall a clinic in Philly go caught killing 7 or 8 babies outside of the womb.

Where did I say that “working harder is the solution”. Again, I need some proof.

People who require medicine to survive, should they be murdered since they could not survive anyway, without the medicine?

old comment by dionysus

@ErikBBrewer

Did you read the link to the Bible?

What about what Jesus says in Matthew 7 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+7:21-23)

Jesus, Himself, says that no everyone who "claims" to be a Christian is actually one.

The definition of a true Christian is in the Bible, but that would require you to open and read It.

I like how you don't know me, you know nothing about me, and yet you're willing to make statements about what I did and did not read. The quoted passage does nothing to address my point whatsoever. So what if it claims that not everyone who says they're a Christian is a Christian? It still does not address providing a definition of what a True (TM) Christian is and more importantly any way to determine who is and who is not a True (TM) Christian. As such, you have no business declaring who is and is not a True (TM) Christian unless you possess such a metric, which is what I asked for in the first place. I know you said it's in the Bible but clearly it's either not there or it's horribly unclear because there are over 30,000 different denominations with a different definition of Christianity.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

Should we sacrifice the quality of care for the quantity of people covered?

Imagine this situation. You need a simple operation, a boil has to be lanced and you spend the night in the hospital. You are on the 12th floor, in a room with 8 other people. It is the middle of summer, there is no A.C. There are no showers on your floor, just a simple toilet. The next day, before leaving in the afternoon, you burn up b/c of heat and suffocate because of the # of people in your room. I do not have to imagine it because I lived it, in a country that practices socialized medicine.

Here is another situation. You miscarry a baby. You are in the hospital. The nurse tells you to stop crying, the pain you feel is not so bad, you will have more kids (you are young), we cannot give you more pain med (you have received the maximum amount allotted to you. Did you bring your own bed sheets? (that is what you are asked when taken into a room full of people, to lie on a "naked" hospital bed. That is not hard for me to imagine because my wife experienced it, all in a country where socialized medicine is the rave.

One more, Teddy the liberal lion Kennedy, who pushed for socialized medicine in Mass, when he went for treatment for his brain tumor, which state did he choose?

old comment by dionysus

@ErikBBrewer

Oh but it does give the definition of a true Christian (if you would have read the chapter then you would have seen that)

Those who do the will of the Father. Those who hear Jesus' Words and act upon them.

Oh because that TOTALLY clears it up. Yup. Now you can go tell the other 30,000 denominations that, unify the religion, and collect your Nobel Peace prize by ending two millenia worth of conflict. But seriously though, that answers nothing. You don't think the Catholics, the Protestants, the Mormons, the Orthodox, the Quakers, the Baptists, etc, etc, etc think they're doing the will of god and Jesus? EVERY Christian sect that I've ever heard of claims to be doing the will of god and Jesus. So once again, how do I separate the True (TM) Christians from the false ones? You STILL haven't given me a metric that we can all agree on and thus haven't really given me any useful information. You might as well have said that a True (TM) Christian is determined by who has the greenest gefflequat for all the good your definition did.

I do not need to know you. I see from the mistakes that you make, that you did not read the text.

And what mistakes would those be? And FYI, I DID read the Bible. Granted, it's been a while since I last read it but I read it from cover to cover including the little preface they put in and while I don't remember the whole thing it doesn't matter as I'm not convinced that it's worth memorizing because I'm not convinced that the claims in that book are true and I can look up passages through the magic of Google.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

It does totally clear it up. A Christian hears the Words of Jesus (the Bible) and acts upon them (lives by them). What more do you want?

I do not think that you know what a denomination is. Being from a different denomination does not make you an enemy. Many denominations differ in the style of worship (music) yet are the exact same when it comes to doctrine (Biblical teaching). Claiming the number of denominations is a cheap tactic and frankly shows more about what you do not know than what you actually know.

Mormonism is not a Christian denomination. It is a cult. Again, more proof of your lack of knowledge.

Read the entire Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) if you want to see the standard of what a true Christian is. I can help you in the things that you do not understand (in the Sermon on the Mount).

old comment by Passerby

@ TIRSM

And why, praytell, would an already well-funded and fully equipped American hospital with rigidly enforced standards to live up to suddenly abandon said standards (and the building itself, apparantly) to save money? Even with every individual paying less the steady contribution of every working American into the system would swell the budget and likely lower overall fees as doctors can work on a guaranteed salary. Preventative care will nip most problems in the bud before surgery is even required which will inarguably reduce the overall cost of maintaining the system and reduce stress on overnight wards.

You said yourself the number of people using the system will increase, detracting from the number of people who have access to top-tier treatment. This, however, is also an admission that people aren't even getting the lowest level of treatment and suffer alone, often undiagnosed. This isn't because they're homeless and uninsured, this is because going to the hospital will jack up their rates.

What of the people born with conditions that require regular treatment, who are ineligable for insurance and screwed unless they have access to a family fortune? Do they not matter at all?

I *currently* live in a country with public healthcare. I recently spent a night in the hospital due to a sudden and near-lethal infection. I waited 40 minutes to be moved to a bed. Busy night. Wild dogs on the loose and at least two people in dire need of blood transfusions because of it. They were seen first because they were bleeding to death. I could wait.

I was kept on a morphine and saline drip due to inexplicable pain and an alarming rate of dehydration. There was no mention made of personal allotment, because whatever is in the hospital is for the patients use. Radiology and blood tests were administered. I was kept overnight. I was kept alive.

old comment by TWoozl

@Erik

Your straw man regarding the quality of care suffering because it is universal, is amazingly ignorant. As a Canadian, I received a private hospital room, meals at proper times (Quality food, too!), morphine shots (On call, too; If I was feeling too much pain, I could ask for more, provided my dosage was still safe)...

I notice you blatantly ignored every point I put forward, providing factual reference for why the poor actually need subsidized health care. You still don't get it that "God's opinion", the "word of Jesus" and your own are -not separate- when you champion the cause yourself. A soldier "following orders" who commits war crimes, has committed a war crime whether it was their own volition or "I was just following orders".

Fact is, you are pro death, by following a view that denies the poor health care. You care only for a fetus, whether it lives regardless of the underlying circumstances, and the moment it's a baby in a poor household, you couldn't give a damn for whether or not its mother can pay to provide it with health care.

You are a flaming hypocrite of the highest order, impervious to basic empirical facts. You actually dare to claim you have a shred of intellectual high ground, you have ignored every single question fronted to you, and at best, you are a bloviating, self-aggrandizing sack of fundamentalist shit, with a serious false piety complex happening. I've provided simple mathematical facts for you, which you've skimmed over, then gone on to yawp and squeak about inadequate proof being provided.

Oh, and yes, I have a second post coming. One with lovely factual refutation of your drooling idiocy. This one? This one's simple catharsis in action. Therapy, salve for my hatred of the intellectual depth you sit at, wallowing in wastes.

old comment by TWoozl

Fact: The highest minimum wage in the United States is not continuing apace with the cost of living. As I pointed out earlier, minimum wage in the highest-wage state is $8.67, in Washington. The average metropolitan rent for a one bedroom apartment is about $800. It costs roughly $200 to feed a single adult for one month. Taxation pares the average monthly wage to $1250, at $8.67/hour, leaving $250 for incidental expenses like transportation, utilities, clothing and other costs.

Insuring an adult against most common issues is $200, on average. Prescriptions are typically only partially covered. An individual with diabetes will either require a few hundred dollars monthly worth of medication and supplies to control their condition, or they will eventually become a hundred thousand dollar burden (Per incident) for cardiac crash care, or septic shock from preventable health issues.

Ever heard the expression "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", Erik? Your position really is quite untenable. Show me clearly and conclusively, refuting the real world examples of Canada and the United Kingdom, that socialized medicine will destroy the United States. Otherwise, again? You are pro death, condemning any poor diabetic or asthma sufferer, or individual with any form of chronic illness in poverty, to an early death.

old comment by Passerby

Additionally my Grandmother was diagnosed with a brain tumor. By lucky chance the finest neurosurgeons in Canada had a free time slot. She was given access to medical technology without bias concerning any social or financial standing. By unlucky chance, her tumor is right on the brain stem and resisted radiation therapy after being surgically reduced in size. The doctors did not give up...

But she has.

I will lose her soon, but if I did not live in Canada I would have lost her months ago to a physician executive's shrug. As you might imagine I feel somewhat strongly about this issue.

It ain't perfect by a long shot. I've got politicians on my end of the border trying axe funding and partitian workplace injuries so they're not covered by standard healthcare. Not many people can be bothered to tackle the shortcomings and instead prefer to heap unconstructive abuse on them. But damn it people I know and love would be dead if they were stuck in your medical system.

If you can bear through the undisguised anger and triple part posting I have an earlier, somewhat graphic example of more ways private healthcare can make people take more of a hit than should be permitted.

old comment by dionysus

@ErikBBrewer

It does totally clear it up. A Christian hears the Words of Jesus (the Bible) and acts upon them (lives by them). What more do you want?

A useful definition for one. For example, what Jesus tells Pat Robertson to do is different from what he tells the Pope to do which is different from what he tells George W. Bush to do which in turn in completely different from what he tells Billy Graham to do. So how do I tell who's actually talking to Jesus and who's full of...excrement?

Oh really? So you think that all of the people I listed above would agree on what Jesus told them to do? Different denominations aren't just different music and rituals, there can be huge differences in beliefs. Does god want to allow gays to marry? Does god want us to teach creationism? Does god want us to pray to the virgin Mary or is that blasphemy? Does Jesus allow us to have his image on the cross or is that considered the same as a graven idol? Do non-Christians all go to hell or are there exceptions? What does god think of cloning? I can go on but basically you'd be hard pressed to find two denominations that agree on what god and Jesus want. I said nothing about you being enemies but it's certainly not all the same thing and mentioning the existence of other denominations is not a cheap tactic but rather a very relevant point within my larger point.

Mormonism is not a Christian denomination. It is a cult. Again, more proof of your lack of knowledge.

I'm glad you said that because now you're going to explain exactly how you know that Mormons don't have a direct line to god and Jesus like the Pope and Pat Robertson do.

the entire Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) if you want to see the standard of what a true Christian is. I can help you in the things that you do not understand (in the Sermon on the Mount).

I've read it and there isn't one Christian I know who follows it entirely. Hell, 5:17-20 tell Christians to follow the entirety of the Law which nobody actually does. I also don't know any Christian who will pluck out his eye after lusting after a woman and I don't remember any Christian saying that we should turn the other cheek when we got attacked on 9/11/01 or on 12/7/41 before that. So if the criterion for being a True (TM) Christian is obeying Jesus' commands and nobody actually does, does that mean that there are no True (TM) Christians in the world?

I'm going to sleep now, but feel free to reply.

old comment by Drax

"Should we sacrifice the quality of care for the quantity of people covered?

I don't know what country that was, but it must have been a third world one. I can assure you it isn't like that in the UK. Nobody is ever, ever, ever told by the NHS 'sorry, you can't have any more medicine, you've had your quota, we can't afford it'. And if people were asked to bring their own bedsheets, there would be national outrage. No government would ever allow NHS standards to fall that low, because they'd never win another election again if they did.

Secondly, the existence of the NHS doesn't prevent people getting private health insurance and private treatment if they choose to. The NHS is there for all to use, but using it isn't compulsory.

Anyway, coming back to my original point. In what way does the principle of social healthcare, available to all and free at the point of use, contradict the teachings of Jesus?

old comment by ErikBBrewer

"that socialized medicine will destroy the United States. Otherwise, again"

Where did I say this? Dude, you really have to stop making stuff up about me. If you like to argue with yourself, that is your perogative (I would seek help if I were you, but maybe that kind is not offered/covered under socialized med in Canada).

I love how a Canadian is dictating what Americans should do, that is funny, I don't care who you are.

Plus, what is the wait for a heart transplant in Canada? I am amazed at the number of wealthy Canadians who travel to the USA for health care (but I guess they just "happen" to get sick on their luxurious vacations).

old comment by ErikBBrewer

"In what way does the principle of social healthcare, available to all and free at the point of use, contradict the teachings of Jesus?"

Jesus did not heal everybody in Israel. That was not the point of His ministry. If you would read the Bible, you would see WHY Jesus healed people. The physical healing opened the door to the spiritual. He always used the healing to teach people and to call people to repentance, faith in Him, and to follow Him in the process of discipleship. That was the purpose of the healing. Again, He did not spend His entire ministry healing, and He did not heal everyone in Israel. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

old comment by

I used to work with several Canadians, and they were all very proud of their healthcare system. They considered it part of their national identity and felt the USA's pay-for-play system that bankrupts the poor and sick and throws families on the street was barbaric.

And Erik, Canadians aren't the only people who engage in medical tourism. Plenty of Americans do as well, and you can read all about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

Point of interest: an estimated 60-85,000 people traveled to the United States for in-patient care in 2008. 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for treatment that same year, up a quarter of a million from 2006.

old comment by Drax

Really? Tell us what the meaning is, then.

I find the message of sharing and helping others, instead of looking only to one's own selfish needs and wants, to run all the way through the message Jesus taught.

Oh yes, I've studied the thing. I've also studied its origins instead of taking it at face value. It's a flawed document, not the work of God, but of men - many different men, modifying and tinkering to suit different points of doctrine many years after the time of Jesus. It's thought that, before the gospels as such were written down, the earliest Christian documents were simply a list of 'Jesus sayings'. I'd love to read that document in its original, unadulterated form. You never know, maybe archaeologists will discover a copy one day.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

Mark 10:17 starts the discussion with the rich young ruler. The young man was a “good” person according to the world’s standards. He had influence and wealth. He is religious. He knows the laws of God and tries to live by them. Jesus response reveals the problem that this rich young man had. The 10 commandments can be broken up into 2 categories, those that deal with your relationship with God (1-4) and those that deal with your relationships with people (5-10). The rich young man agreed that he had kept the second half (dealing with people). His problem was the first half (dealing with his relationship with God). The 1st command says to have no other god before God. The rich young ruler had another god in his life. He worshiped his wealth above God. He wanted to have God in his life, but not in the #1 spot. Jesus beautifully points this out by telling (this young man specifically) to sell all of his possessions, give the money to the poor, and dedicate his life to following Jesus. The young man could not do it. He could not lose the money to gain God. This was the only person Jesus told to sell everything and give all his money to the poor (because that was at the root of the man’s problem). Jesus says that it is difficult for the rich to enter into heaven. Why? Because they worship their money. This does not mean that all rich people will not make it into heaven. I know some rich people who are not controlled by money. They use their money to serve God and people.

old comment by Drax

Well, just off the top of my head: who was the father of Joseph? What were Jesus' last words?Who were the women who visited Jesus' tomb? Did they go inside, or not? Did they meet one angel or two? What did they do - keep quiet or go tell the disciples? Who was the first to see Jesus after he resurrected? How many times did he appear? How long did he stick around before being taken up to heaven? How did Judas die?

There are many more, but it doesn't matter - you'll find a way to explain them all away because you won't, you can't, accept that any contradictions exist.

I don't know if you looked at earlychristianwritings.com - it gives some very interesting scholarly views on the origin of both the material that did eventually find its way into the New Testament, and the stuff that was rejected. Note the decision what to include and what to leave out was made by a committee, centuries after the events.

"5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament"

So what? All that means is a lot of copies were made. A lot of copies were made of Darwin's Origin of Species, too.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

"I am all for the death penalty (so is God)
http://erikbrewer.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/confusion-between-crime-and-punishment/)"

Interesting. So according to you - and Kathy30 here - if you & your 'Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!' attitude was allowed free rein:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=80088&Page=2

Then those who had been convicted of various (and extremely serious) crimes, but then later it was discovered that they were completely innocent, would now be dead, if not still in jail (probably for the rest of their lives).The most prominent examples being the Guildford Four, Tottenham Three, Maguire Seven, Stefan Kiszko - and the most famous example of all, The Birmingham Six:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

In most cases, it was due to errors by the courts/legal teams and/or police investigations. Or even altered and/or falsified evidence by the police/prosecutors themselves, in the case of the Birmingham Six.

Proof that the justice/law enforcement system can go wrong, make errors - or fail, nay pervert the very course of justice itself..

And now you know why the death penalty was scrapped here in the UK in the early 1960s.

Otherwise all those people - completely innocent - would have been executed. If the likes of you had your own way, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer.

When the state commits murder, we all become murderers. That includes you, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer.

One thing I can't - and never will - figure out: how you right-wing Fundamentalist Christians can reconcile you being (as per your quote); "I am all for the death penalty", yet simultaneously being 'Pro-Life'?

old comment by

@ Anon-e-moose
"Interesting. So according to you - and Kathy30 here - if you & your 'Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!' attitude was allowed free rein: "

Back for more I see. No, God explains when and how the death penalty is to be applied. Maybe if you actually opened the Bible, you would know this.

"One thing I can't - and never will - figure out: how you right-wing Fundamentalist Christians can reconcile you being (as per your quote); "I am all for the death penalty", yet simultaneously being 'Pro-Life'?"

Oh the name calling, 1st grade all over again. Anyway, I like how you compare the murder of innocent children to the punishment of guilty criminals. Nice job.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

ErikB(ullshit)Brewer:

"God explains when and how the death penalty is to be applied"

image

Ah yes, that's right: Stoning to death anyone who works - even so much as picking up sticks - on the Sabbath Yeah, kill the heathen for doing something on one particular day, when nobody would bat an eyelid if the same was done on any other day, amirite?! Yeh, that's the ticket.

"Maybe if you actually opened the Bible, you would know this."

I have. Thus:

image

(emphasis added):

'Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived.'

-Isaac Asimov

It's precisely why I'll never be a fundie like you, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer. Being a left-wing Atheist is infinitely superior. Everything you fundies say, do, think, and 'believe' proves that.

old comment by Drax

ErikBBrewer

"Yes, exactly. And a lot of modern-day Christians worship their money, too, even if they don't admit it even to themselves."

"Wow, that is very judgmental, first of all, you do not know every single modern day Christian to be able to use such a blanketing statement. You do not know me. Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is. You can be dirt poor and be controlled by the love of money."

I said a lot, not all. I didn't even refer specifically to you.

You really have a weak argument.

You're entitled to take that view if you wish.

I would recommend that you actually study the Bible instead of only what everybody else says about the Bible.

To be honest, I've got better things to do than reread the Bible. The Bible is itself just a collection of things other people have said, about God, about Jesus. It has no magic power and no special authority.

old comment by TWoozl

I've logged back in to find Erik's posted a string of absolute bullshit and rhetoric to "answer" my statements and my own clear inquiries. Statements of "biblical fact" are now "questions", factual references posted twice no less, have been skimmed over and completely ignored, references to real world examples of precisely what he rallies against have gone unobserved, and the logical fallacies simply continue to pour.

Erik, it is no longer worth my time to attempt to engage with you in any form of conversation or intellectual discourse; You are at best, a liar, and at worst willfully intellectually bankrupt. You have not answered the following, and missed the following:

- 2 instances depicting a very real American scenario for why your viewpoint is barbaric at best.
- 3 separate instances detailing the same two instances of real world socialist medicine working just fine.
- Multiple requests for you to prove your education's relevance in this field of discussion (You have failed to even state what form of degree you ostensibly have, while making crass ad-hominem attacks on others)
- Calls for factual scientific studies on the topic.

You, sir, are questionably literate, unquestionably dense, and entirely in the wrong place if you believe simply waving Ann Coulter or Biblical quotes about will somehow convince us. I have three Bibles, a Torah, and a Quran on a shelf within six feet of me. I have read them all, cover to cover. They are all errant. You, are a fraud and a liar by extension. Refute me with circular logic as you usually will, but I'll leave you on a more blue-collar note:

Fuck you, you sycophantic, apologetic, falsely pious sack of waste meat. I thank logic, not #DEITY, that better educated men and women, outnumber you, outvote you and serve dominion over you. You aren't fit to judge a potted plant, nevermind the law of the land.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

"You are at best, a liar"

Any proof of this nonsense?

"- 2 instances depicting a very real American scenario for why your viewpoint is barbaric at best. "

You do not even know my viewpoint, you attributed one to me, as a straw man tactic, to attack.

I have not even posted a stance on socialized medicine, again a straw man on your part.

"Calls for factual scientific studies on the topic."

On what topic? I have not stated a stance pro or con, what factual evidence do I need to present?

I do not have to convince you of anything. Every human has the right to live in ignorance if he chooses. Why would I want to convince you to change?

I have my education from a secular university. I have not asked anyone to show their diplomas, again, straw man!!!

"They are all errant"

You have yet to demonstrate one error in the Bible (New T. or Old).

Did you even bother to read Ann Coulter's articles? (I doubt it, so I want even ask for how you could refute them)

Did your logic teach you how to hate?

old comment by ErikBBrewer

I had no idea FSTDT existed until someone took some of my quotes and placed them on this site. It linked back to my blog and here I am. I am not new to this, I have been doing this since 2007, just in a different language.

I am not out to convince or convert anyone. I just want to present the other side of the argument (something that is usually missing from sites like this).

I am not an enemy of people. I am an enemy of lies and I see a lot of them from atheists (many who do not realize that they have believed a lie). There is a reason why the Apostle Paul constantly warned the church, "do not be deceived". If you do not know the Word of God then you can fall for all sorts of lies.

I do not practice a faith that I inherited from my parents. I was a pagan for many years. God radically transformed my life. I know that if He could do that with me (my lifestyle) then He can do the same for anyone. I have been to the depths of the pit of sin. I am glad that I was removed and I never want to do back.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

@ dionysus
Everything that Jesus “tells” us to do is found in the Bible. He does not whisper in anyone’s ear. He does not speak through a tingling feeling in your stomach. He has spoken!

The explanation for or against “gay marriage” is found in the Bible. The Bible teaches Creationism, problem solved. You can pray to whom you wish but the only prayer that God hears are the ones addressed to Him through Jesus Christ (again, clearly taught in the Bible). You can attempt to pray to God through a tree but you will just end up talking to a tree. The Bible is clear on idols and images, do not worship and serve them (a cross is not the image of God, it is a torture rack). All who do not follow Jesus Christ will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (do not forget that God sees the past, present, future all at the same time and knows if a baby would have believed or not if he or she would have lived). Again, these are all clear teachings of the Bible so you still have not made a point.

Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is God. They teach that He is a god (and half brother of Satan) but I am sure you know all of this. Jesus clearly says in His Word, the Bible, if you do not believe that I am God (One and the same with God the Father) then you are not a child of God (Christian, if you like).

I follow the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe you do not know enough Christians, ever think of that?

5:17-20 say that your righteousness must surpass that of the Scribes and Pharisees, who had an external form of righteousness but were actually worse than the pagans.

Jesus never asks anyone to pluck out his eyes. The eye is not the problem, even blind men lust. Maybe you should reread the Sermon on the Mount because you sure did not understand much of it.

old comment by Passerby

*Yawn*

That was a good rest. You guys are all still at it?

Well TIRSM, how is a collective agreement 'forced charity?' For that matter how is a system you are also free to use yourself 'charity?' It's not free, you're paying for it and that's the issue you and every other detractor have been complaining about.

The original pamphlets announcing the implementation of the NHS even says flat out that it is not charity, but the returned investment of your tax dollars.

Do you consider the police a 'charity' since they are bound to investigate all crimes?

Do you consider the fire service a 'charity' since they don't make a profit putting out forest fires before they spread to populated areas?

What makes something a 'charity' and what makes it the government doing it's damned job?

Americans often cite fear of 'big' government, but that's never been the case. It's been a government with too much responsibility that they've feared, and I think that the American government itself being the one to scare you with the possibility speaks volumes. Your politicians don't want to work for your tax money, but they'll take absolute power over your lives in a heartbeat. Would mine do the same? Maybe if we were as susceptible to symbology and as resistant to logical debate as people like you they would, but so far no sale.

With the introduction of the PATRIOT act any citizen of the US can be detained, their property and finances seized, their right to legal defenses denied, and the use of torture authorized on the mere *suspicion* of rendering indirect aid to utterly undefined 'enemy combatants' and people are supposed to trust that it won't be abused. Just wave the flag when there's a complaint and it's magically fine.

But make them responsible for healthcare and suddenly they're out to get you?

At least apply that fear evenly, if you're going to fall for it.

old comment by

Whoa Erik, have you talked to every liberal on earth, every person who believes in socialized medicine, and every person who promotes Darwinism about that? Go easy on the assumptions there, pal. Those are three disparate groups that don't necessarily overlap by rule. Sounds like you're painting with a broad brush there buddy, and as established previously by you, that's a very bad thing to do.

Also promoting evolution and/or natural selection as the origin of life is no more incongruous with a belief in single payer healthcare than the concept of a person who understands that shooting someone in the head could kill them is incongruous with a belief that we probably shouldn't go around capping people. It's that old "well atheists think we came from monkeys (which isn't true, but that's another can of worms) so obviously they think that humans are no more dignified than wild animals which runs counter to them having bleeding hearts and crap" argument that has always been garbage.

old comment by Professor M

@ ErikBBrewer --

I understand that you, like most evidence-deniers, insist that evolution represents a social-Darwinist (read: distorted Darwinist) model of "survival of the fittest". I understand that you, like most of your ilk, will not be dissuaded by any insistence by people who are actually familiar with the theory in question (unlike your preferred strawman manufacturers) that the interpretation of "survival of the fittest" that you insist the rest of us refer to is actually not an effective description of natural selection and thus is not part of the model that we propose. Will you at least, though, go so far as to pay lip service to your own texts (the "false witness" bit in particular) and stop making such egregiously false claims about what we actually propose?

old comment by Neith

Actually, socialized healthcare does play into "survival of the fittest." The same way humanity as a whole has survived thus far by helping each other out in times of need, socialized healthcare is just another extension of that. The more we help each other out, the stronger humanity as a whole becomes... as long as we don't run out of food sources due to overpopulation. ;)

So Erik is, in effect, correct in one respect, but in the exact opposite way of what he believes he is.

Erik, have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? It's something I have known about for many years, but never knew there was a name for it until the last year or so.

old comment by People are Strange

Correct me if I am wrong - Isn't unrestricted capitalism closer to survival of the fittest? That is exactly what social darwinism implies. Natural processes applied to a social construct. A completely unrestricted market would lead to that. Those with power (money) are more fit to survive and the weak (the poor) will be weeded out.

ErikBBrewer said:

I just find it interesting that those who believe survival of the fittest cry foul the loudest when health care is run on survival of the fittest.

I find just the opposite to be true. Those that dismiss evolution are more than happy to accept evolutionary principles, whether or not they acknowledge it as such, in the how they think society should run. Those that deny it would like to see its principles implemented in our markets and society even if not by name.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

"I like how you compare the murder of innocent children to the punishment of guilty criminals"

As does your own 'God', it seems (emphasis added):

Hosea 13:16: 'Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.*'

You worship a baby-murdering monster. Therefore you have no right to not just say word one on the completely legal (Roe vs Wade, 1973 USA; it was legal here in the UK before then) procedure that is abortion, you don't even have the right to have an opinion on the subject. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Your own 'God' is, after all.

And that's not taking into account the mere fact that you're a man. Abortion is entirely up to the individual woman to decide for herself.

*- And don't you dare bring up 'context', 'interpretation', or any other transparent method used by fundies to spin their way out of excusing their own vile bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and hypocrisies, born out of their own taking out of context & 'reinterpretation' of their own Bible.

image

old comment by Anon-e-moose

ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

"And where do I bear false witness?"

Wherever (presumably the bathroom) you take your clothes off*, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer.

image

Thank you, I'm here all week. Try the buffet!

*- Brain Bleach is also supplied (along with Brillo Pads) for those who need such, as a result of that mental (or should that be 'Fundamentalist') image.

@#1274288

"Second, universal healthcare is actually what Jesus would mandate because, remember, it's your duty to help those in need. So?"

This is the current location of ErikB(ullshit)Brewer, the OP, and all fundies like them:

image

Universal Healthare exists in the US. In Canada too. As it does in most of Europe. It's existed here in the UK since the late 1940s.

Deal with it.

Oh, and speaking of Canada, and it's free healthcare, try this on for size, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer, and all your fundie ilk:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html

http://washingtonindependent.com/78624/palin-growing-up-i-hustled-over-the-border-for-health-care

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/7409555/Sarah-Palins-family-sought-health-care-in-Canada.html*

Yep, Your own poster girl Sarah Failin crossed the border to Canada - to take advantage of their free healthcare. Guess who was one of Obama's fiercest opponents of Universal Healthcare, since he first brought up the issue for discussion?

Destroyed argument much, Repubicans, Teabaggers, Neocunts, Religious Right, et al?

Just goes to prove what I always say: Hypocrisy, thy name is Fundie.

*- PROTIP: The Daily/Sunday Telegraph is a Conservative newspaper. Just before you dare accuse us of 'bias'.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

'because God didn't write the Bible.'

"That is your assumption."

Was it 'God' who put pen to paper/fingers to keyboard and wrote/typed out the whole thing himself, proofread (lol spellchecking; errors, inconsistencies, contradictions etc), then sent the manuscript/Word documents to the printer himself, then distributed said printed & bound volumes to the vendors said Bible with, on the cover 'Written by God'?

All by himself?

So much for your 'God's omnipotence then, if he had to rely on mere mortal, flawed, errant humans to produce said 'Word of God'.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

At least we have "The God Delusion" and "The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution", actually written by Richard Dawkins.

[/smartarse]

And for my next trick, making the sound of one hand clapping: quickly strike the fingers of that hand on the palm; the sound doesn't have much volume, but it's there. Next, going to a forest, locating a tree that's dead & rotting, and close to collapsing. Then placing a digital audio recorder (with a lithium battery) that has auto-record facility near said tree, then leaving the area. Returning later, when said tree has collapsed, retrieving the recorder, thus having the sound of a tree falling over when there's nobody there to hear it.

[/smartarse II]

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to prove that white is black, via the use of this Zebra crossing...

(*Sound of car approaching*)

[/Douglas Adams]

Moral: 'Assume'. Where you make an ASS out of U, and not ME.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

old comment by ErikBBrewer

"And don't you dare bring up 'context', 'interpretation', or any other transparent method used by fundies to spin their way out of excusing their own vile bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and hypocrisies, born out of their own taking out of context & 'reinterpretation' of their own Bible"

That tells us all we need to know about you. All literature must be interpreted (have you ever sat in a class in basic Lit?) according to the Laws of composition, but since you do not care about intellectual integrity, there is no need to continue the convo with you.

BTW, do most women impregnate themselves?

BTW, Dawkins is a hack "theologist" (he does not care about the rules of interpretation either, as his disciple, I am not surprised that you are the same way)

old comment by Anon-e-moose

ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

"but since you do not care about intellectual integrity, there is no need to continue the convo with you."

The Bible. The literal 'Word of God'. To be obeyed, word for word, letter for letter (seeing as it is the 'Word of God' after all).

Yes or no? (check one)

[ ] Yes. Then - via everything you've said so far in FSTDT, you've destroyed your own argument.

[ ] No. Then it's not the 'Word of God', word for word, letter for letter. Not to be obeyed literally. Then you've not just destroyed your own arguments, but you yourself have destroyed the very basis of your own 'beliefs'.

Choose wisely.

"All literature must be interpreted (have you ever sat in a class in basic Lit?) according to the Laws of composition"

image

You said it, I didn't.

Never mind 'Laws of Composition', how about Laws of Logic and Reason? Two words: talking snake.

image

No 'interpretation' required. The Bible is the literal 'Word of God' after all.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

(emph-ass-is added):

"literature aspect of the Word of God"

I refer you to the first image in my previous comment, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer.

"universal truths"

'Truths'? Bats are birds? Rabbits chew their cud? Goats, when bred near spotted poles, take on the same colouration characteristics of said poles? Pi = exactly 3?:

image

(when it was proven otherwise by Greek mathematicians. Ancient Greek mathematicians. That's as in BCE for the hard of thinking such as you, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer)

A talking snake?!

image

"written in a specific context to a specific group of people"

'There's a sucker born every minute'

-PT Barnum

Meanwhile, on Planet Reality, there's we Atheists. Who only acknowledge and accept facts, based on testable, falsifiable, repeatable scientific evidence. And who can discern what we're reading is fact, and fiction, Via this discernment, we Atheists can determine what your Bible is. And it's certainly not the former. Oh, and as everything exists, and works, according to 'his' unknowable plan: BTW, your 'God' made me an Atheist. Who are you to question his will?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

"Did the individual woman get herself pregnant?"

Mary Cheney, lesbian daughter of Dick(head) Cheney:

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/mary-cheney-dicks-lesbian-daughter-is-sperminated/

Two words: sperm banks.*

image

Your own 'God' - in the guise of the Holy Ghost - banged that bit of underage briffit Mary, after all.

So if the (Dutch) cap fits...!

X3 >:D

--EDIT--

@ErikB(ullshit)Brewer

"a fool"

'The fool says in his heart there is no God.'

-'God's Word' (Psalm 14:1)"

The wise man says it with his mouth.

-Anon-e-moose's Word (Gabriel, Banks & Rutherford 1:9¾)

"(BTW, God calls you the fool, not me)"

Matthew 5:22: 'Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.'

Well, that's him fucked then.

"You chose to be a fool on your own (BTW, God calls you the fool, not me)."

Well, you heard it here first, folks - and in such an open and honest way of admitting it: ErikB(ullshit)Brewer thinks he's God.

image

"Atheism, like homosexuality, is a choice."

Absolutely right, re. the former. Proof?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(athlete)

...as for the latter (and speaking as a straight - but pro-LGBT - man) [*facepalms*] Oh dear...:

image

*- The only place of it's kind where you get paid for making a deposit. X3

--EDIT II--

@Liberal Christian

'Atheism, like homosexuality, is a choice.'

"Atheism is a choice. Homosexuality cannot be one as no one can choose who they are attracted to. Get your facts straight, Mr. Brewer."

image image

old comment by Passerby

This would be the fourth time in 3 days I've asked this where you've chosen to instead fling insults, issue non-sequitors, or otherwise go off on wild tangents: Do you consider law enforcement and firefighters forced charity?

That you dance around the simple and direct questions in favour of nonsensical grandstands of your own construction indicates you don't have any intention of answering. I had to back you into a corner just to get you to clearly state your position on healthcare after you denied having made one at all.

I have to wonder if this is deliberate, that you avoid the questions people ask in favour of the ones you construct yourself not because you have something else to address or because you don't have an immediate answer but because it's more important to you to keep the shouting match going. You're either the most oblivious strawman ever or a doggedly determined troll with acting skills and enough free time to build up a false persona for the sole purpose of drawing in people to flame.

old comment by Passerby

No, if you refuse to answer it means you never had anything to say and never will. Speaking to you further would be pointless as your only goal is to garner attention to yourself, using Jesus as a pretense.

God have mercy on you, Erik. You invoke His name in vain and claim you meant nothing when called on it. You claim you mean nothing when your own words are shoved in your face. You claim nothing period. You say nothing period.

Until you have something to say that you will not detract or claim meant nothing at all at a later date I move to ignore your childish antics and encourage others to do the same.

Fare thee well, TIRSM. When you're done using Jesus as a stick to poke people with and actually find Him the world will be much better off. You are no Christian.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Erik B(ullshit)Brewer

Remember "I figured you would run away from that question"? Well, in the case of your own words, verbatim, "Atheism, like homosexuality, is a choice."; again, to use your own words verbatim...:

That tells us all we need to know about you.

Like I say, be extremely careful about what you say to we Atheists (we have long memories, as does FSTDT's server & database): Your own words may come back to haunt you.

Ye shall know them by their fruits indeed. And speaking of fruits, with homophobes - especially fundie ones - it's a case of that those who come out (pun may or may not be intended) with the fallacy 'Homosexuality is a choice' - or anything even remotely derogatory of LGBT people - are closet cases themselves.

image

Fred Phelps is so far in his own closet, he's already in Narnia, frolicking around oh so fabulously with Aslan & Tumnus.

He & his WBC are also conclusive proof of the more than infinite superiority of Atheism. With what he's doing to you & your ilk's public image, frankly, he's our greatest ally in the self-annihilation of right-wing Fundamentalist Christianity. As are Sarah Failin, Pat Robertson, Rush Limburger et al. All adding to the perpetual P.R. traincrash that are the Repubicans, Teabaggers, Neocunts, Religious Right et al (and how such are perceived by the rest of the world. My, you lot are showing what fine examples of humanity you are. Then you wonder why the rest of the world laughs at you?). And we Atheists don't even have to lift a finger*.

Dance, our puppets, dance.

>:D

*- Just as in WWII, Churchill vetoed a plan to assassinate Hitler. Adolf was such a failure in everything he said, thought and did, and how such (certainly re. tactics & war planning. Even surrounded by his best generals, admirals etc, everything was down to his 'my way or the highway' attitude) accelerated his - and the Wehrmacht's - own downfall, he was at the time, a greater asset to the Allied war effort alive, than dead; hell, Churchill/Roosevelt didn't even have to rely on one of their own troops killing Hitler - he had the courtesy, at the end, to annihilate himself, that's how much the ultimate failure he was! You fundies are destroying yourselves. Via everything you say, do, and think.

image

Roe vs. Wade, Kitzmiller vs. Dover, repealment of DADT, overturning of Prop. 8, Universal Healthcare. Secularism - 5. God - 0.

You fundies are the equivalent of what'd happen if the USA were to go up against North Korea in a World Cup. At least North Korea made it to a Quarter Final in the 1966 World Cup (the rest is history, natch...!). PROTIP: As in Japan/South Korea 2006, in South Africa last year USA were knocked out of the World Cup - by Ghana. To borrow a football metaphor, everything the Religious Right in the US have done - to forward their own agendas - have only resulted in Own Goals.

Ergo, you and your ilk, in everything you say, do, and think...:

image

QED.

As for we Atheists - and generally anyone not like you - it's great being on the eternally winning side.

image

[/hyper-smug & ultra-superior]

--EDIT--

But anyway, getting back on topic: healthcare, and why right-wing fundies are getting their knickers in a knot about their country finally entering the 20th Century and following the rest of Europe - certainly the UK. To reiterate what I said in this thread:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=76750&Page=4

Why do you and your ilk even need healthcare - private (health insurance) or state provided (i.e. our NHS) - in the first place?

If prayer is supposed to heal all ills*, then when you're involved in a hideous car crash, and mangled up - or your appendix decides to go all FUBAR, go ahead. A prayer a day should keep the doctor away, amirite?

Thus you don't need to pay health insurance. Just pray. And it's free.

...what's that? Something being 'free' sounds too Obama-istic? Too communistic? Again, look in that Bible of yours and ask yourself this: did Jesus ask for payment for his healing** services? Yes or No? Oh well, just keep paying that health insurance. But then, that proves you don't have much faith in your 'faith'. Amirite? Enjoy your paradox.

*- And faith is supposed to move mountains (meaning that for True Christians like you, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer), armed with your 'faith', nothing's impossible, amirite? Thus you don't even need healthcare, therefore the question:

What are you lot getting your collective knickers in a knot about?

**- I'm a computer engineer by trade. Does that mean I can perform brain surgery? Just because someone may have the power to heal, doesn't mean that gives them the right to perform such tasks.

If a doctor is struck off the medical register, it's illegal for him/her to practice medicine in any way, shape or form. I don't see any mention of Jesus having the relevant medical qualifications.

Harrison Ford, before becoming the A-list actor he is, was an expert carpenter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Ford#Early_career

'Ford became a self-taught professional carpenter to support his then-wife and two small sons. While working as a carpenter, he became a stagehand for the popular rock band The Doors. He also built a sun deck for Sally Kellerman and a recording studio for Sérgio Mendes.

He was then hired to build cabinets at the home of George Lucas, who subsequently cast him in a pivotal supporting role for his film American Graffiti (1973). Ford's relationship with Lucas profoundly affected his career. After director Francis Ford Coppola's film The Godfather was a success, he hired Ford to expand his office and gave him small roles in his next two films, The Conversation (1974) and Apocalypse Now (1979).'

As later proved in the film "Witness" (when he rebuilt the Amish household's dovecote he 'accidentally ran over'). He's a self-taught carpenter. As I'm a self-taught computer engineer (which is my job)

Does that therefore mean we can practice medicine?

Your call, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer.

old comment by Passerby

It would appear Mr. Brewer's obviousness in regards to his shameless attention whoring and deliberately circular baiting has irked the administrators of FSTDT and they've begun to delete him from newer posts. They may be working their way backwards or letting it stand.

I resolved not to waste my breath on him while he was here, now it seems any breath that involves his name will be wasted by default.

If it weren't for this very discussion thread I'd have thought it unfair, but as #1274770 pointed out Brewer has filled nearly ten pages dodging every single question, dismissing every single answer, and denouncing his own statements before repeating the cycle ad infinitum.

Let the fires die out. The Incredible Regenerating Straw Man has spent himself as fuel and it does him a disservice to talk about his stupidity now that he no longer has a chance to defend himself. Not that he would, realistically, that requires making a solid statement without saying 'nyah nyah, just kidding' but it's still common decency.

Also, we're using up archive space.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Passerby

"It would appear Mr. Brewer's obviousness in regards to his shameless attention whoring and deliberately circular baiting has irked the administrators of FSTDT and they've begun to delete him from newer posts. They may be working their way backwards or letting it stand."

As it has been in the past with the likes of TOS(ser) and of course, He Who Must Not Be Named. To reiterate this fellow commenter (emphasis added):

@#1274450

"Erik's been using a very common troll tactic throughout this exchange. He's posing rhetorical/loaded questions, and when someone calls him on what he's really trying to say, he takes offense that someone would dare try to take him to task on a simple, innocuous "observation". Basically it allows him to post all kinds of ridiculous garbage but not feel like he has to own it when he gets called out on it. Too bad for Bible Boy that most of the posters here see right through it."

That's the way the game's played here, ErikB(ullshit)Brewer: If you - a fundie - deign to be challenged here, you must answer our questions & challenges directly, and to our satisfaction, without deviation (certainly resort to blatant trolling and/or spamming). If you can't, then you forfeit your commenting privileges.

Troll4Life, I'm looking at you.

old comment by Toothygrin

Well, durn. He's been eliminated. I was ever so hoping to eventually see his answer to Passerby. "A trap" indeed. How can that be a trap? It was a perfectly honest question. (well-done, good sir[maam?] Passerby!) Relating needed public services that are being paid for with tax dollars to ... needed public services that are being paid for with tax dollars.

Apples to apples.

Also, I was hoping to nail him again on a question he didn't answer of mine regarding "Homosexuality being a choice." I guaran-frickin-tee he has never actually befriended a fully "out" homosexual person and talked genuinely to them. Every one that I know (and again, I know dozens) knew of their real orientation early in life (well before the teens.) The opposite sex didn't interest them at all, whereas they saw their own gender and thought to themselves "Mmm! I'mma getme summat!"

At six, that's not a choice. At nine, that's not a choice. Whatever it is, combination of genetics, hormone production or whatever, it is not a choice.

Yes, that's anecdotal evidence (I can only claim my references to be direct interviews with homosexual folks), but we can take the double-blind test with a zillion folks straight and gay and I can bet that with honesty of the folks interviewed, you'll get a conclusive statement towards the "I knew early on in life" club!

old comment by Xoy

If only Jinger did not go to the whole god thing, I would agree.

The Founding Fathers considered government to be evil. They didn’t want to give us anymore government than necessary. So, they didn’t.

Government is an evil and an unnecessary one at that.

They also rejected the principles of the Enlightenment, something in my opinion, is one of the darkest periods in history. There was nothing “enlightening” about it at all. It’s the same secular humanism that liberals are passing around today.

This is a blatant lie. The founders embraced the ideals of the Enlightenment. These ideals are by no means secular humanist.

(Sidenote: As an anarchist, I want to make the world a better place. That makes a national health service a necessary evil, at least on a temporary basis.)

old comment by

Passerby

The brain and cognitive functions have not formed in the stages where abortions are performed. You cannot 'suck out' the brain of a fetus, it does not have one yet (at least not one that is fully formed let alone functional) and is unaware it is alive. Until cognitive functions develop, it is an extension of the mother. It is no more a person than her left arm would be. After cognitive functions develop it is aware and it is an individual. Abortions are not perfomed legally anywhere after that point nor should they be. Saline is water with a light pinch of salt that couldn't burn a slug. I cannot imagine human skin tissue being burned by it. Your medical knowledge is questionble and your rhetoric weak.

Personally, I'm for the death penalty. I imagine you're referring to the incredulity of those who point out that pro-lifers are overwhelmingly in support of the death penalty while claiming it is unjust to take any life and do not see any dissonance within that statement. You're comparing the dissolution of a developing fetus which has no cognitive functions and is not 'alive' as we recognize it to the execution of a fully grown and fully aware human.

There is further dissonance in the field of euthenasia, where a suffering human *wishes* to die but is denied while a suffering animal is put down without a second thought.

I've no idea what any of the above has to do with public or private healthcare, however.

old comment by Passerby

No I have not heard of it.

A quick search reveals that this is the reason why:

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/23-Partial-Birth-Abortion.PDF

While it has been posthumously added to online medical information sites as a term recognizable to the layman 'partial birth abortion' was invented to make Intact Dilation and Extraction procedures seem like a brutal human sacrifice used on healthy, viable babies mid-delivery when in reality it is an exceedingly rare procedure performed in the second and third trimesters on a fetus that is dead, dying, or endangering the mother's life and still has no chance of survival.

So apart from being an invented term used by lobbyists and spread through the public no, actually, it doesn't exist as far as the freakishly monstrous terms you're suggesting are concerned. It was written into US law as a scare tactic and as a stealthy attempt to classify an unborn as a citizen to prevent abortion in the future. It's a gross piece of disinformation spun from a real medical procedure and perverting the reality of it into one that does not exist.

Not a difficult mistake to make, given how readily people will gobble up rhetoric as fact, but a mistake nonetheless. Though it is interesting that you seem to know the actual procedure and still managed to make that mistake. While saline does not 'burn' the fetus so far as I am aware I will apologize for brushing off your half-informed statement. During the second trimester where this procedure can be electively performed on a malformed fetus with low survival chances, (not typically recommended by doctors,) the fetus displays few cognitive functions and only limited response to stimuli. In the third trimester where identifiable sleep and wakeful states are displayed in a healthy baby (which would not be targetted by this procedure) this is not an elective and only performed in life-threatened situations as by this stage the baby *is* self-aware. Doctors make similar life-and-death choices every day, most notably when separating conjoined twins whose bodies cannot support eachother. This is simply it's most traumatic extreme. Make no mistake, this is an operation that is only performed in the third trimester when death is certain and is often the only way to save one of the two lives.

I still don't see what this has to do with the general administration and handling of Healthcare.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Passerby

"Wow it got quiet here."

Maybe not.

Another lamb to the debating charnel house...!

(*sharpens verbal blades*):

@#1284456

"If healthcare is to be socialized and run by the government, where do you draw the line? Proper housing is also part of a healthy lifestyle, so should housing be a right that the government must provide? What about food, is the government supposed to provide "healthy" food as well? Again, we see the slippery slope of socialism."

And yet, Norway was the only country that effectively emerged out of this recession unscathed.

So, remind me if you will: in said recession which country was the one that fared the worst, again...?

PROTIP: India and China are emerging as superior economies. Seems the latter are doing extremely well out of combining Communism & Capitalism; why it's as if they've found the right financial formula, and have become superior in the process. Who do you owe your very souls to, USA...?!:

image

I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords. Better start learning Mandarin. And Atheism, USA.

Where is your God now?!

>:D

...oh, and on the healthcare point, just be glad Obama scrapped the ban on Stem Cell research in the US - and the technological advances in medical science* that will come as a result of such. After all, you Americans wouldn't want to have to travel to China for any & all new Gene Therapies that become available, as they're not hamstrung by inferior religious interference in countries' politics, or even my country the UK. Several years ago, our Parliament voted to reject a ban on Stem Cell research; oh, and to reject a reduction in the time on abortions at the same time too. So we in the UK aren't as obsessed about religion as you nutty buggers are over there in the USA? And it was we in the UK who first introduced the concept of socialised healthcare with our National Health Service in the late 1940s. Deal with it.

*- China is set to overtake the US in scientific R&D in the next two years. Seems your time as No.1 is coming to an end. But then, of course...

All great powers fall. No Exceptions.

Roman Empire. Ottoman Empire. British Empire. Third Reich. USSR. Guess who'll be joining that list next?

>:D

old comment by Passerby

Well this has gone off the healthcare rails again. Thanks for encouraging this disturbingly familiar behavior with your Communism plugs Anon-E-Moose. I know the other guy started it and you appear to be trying to make a point about certain hangups over deconstructed boogeymen and sensationalized semantics delaying or outright derailing beneficial action, but still...

#1284983

Adult stem cells are not as adaptive as those from embryonic and umbillical donations. If I'm reading this information correctly, they can only replicate the tissues they are extracted from and in pitiful amounts with eventual limitations. There is also a considerably higher chance of mutation and toxicity. Despite this, adult stem cells have made significant progress and were used in successful transplants.

The controversy of embryonic stem cells comes from the artificial fertlization of a donated egg. Some people mistakenly believe these cells are from an aborted fetus. The truth is, the egg is not fertilized within a human body and is immediately split and applied to growth cultures. The embryo does not develop at all and remains a single mass of undifferentiated cells at the time of destruction. Though they are rarely viable it should be noted that many of the embryos used in this process were from failed fertility treatments and the division process naturally ceased. The embryo is essentially stillborn -dead- and slated for destruction as it would never develop into a fetus even with aid. This does nothing to lessen the controversy, however. It can be mass-produced and directed into multiple tissue types indefinitely. Unless something goes wrong, a single cell line can theoretically produce new cells ad infinitum.

There should be no controversy at all over umbillical cell research, which is leftover from a successful delivery of a healthy baby and would otherwise be medical waste. It's a relatively new approach showing much greater compatibility than adult cells but not the adaptivity or production potential of embryonic cells. (So far as I have read. Research is ongoing.)

Despite these distinctions, stem cell research is discussed in blanket terms with no differentiation when people talk about banning it.

While fascinating, this has nothing to do with the general administration of healthcare. Can you qualify the oft-repeated fears of steady government intrusion blossoming into a totalitarian nightmare?

Just out of curiosity, would you say there's a fundamental difference between government funded law enforcement, government funded fire suppression/rescue teams, and government funded healthcare?

I'd very much like an outside perspective on that question and you sort of remind me of somebody I've been waiting for an answer from. You seem a little more direct so why don't you give it a go?

old comment by Passerby

The FDA is in place to ensure just that. It's illegal to sell toxic food and pharmaceutical products, just as it should be. Recently laws were enacted to also make it a legal requirement to list ingredients and nutritional information so consumers can make informed decisions. There are also laws regulating the pricing of sales, so you won't find people charging 5$ for a single apple when they become the only supplier in town. The laws are currently much looser in the USA, meaning a pharmaceutical company could charge more than 100$ for a single pill when they corner the market. It's also legal in the US to sell pills that do next to nothing, so long as they have more consistent effects than a sugar pill.

Their role is prevention of abuse, and such is the limit of goverment control we allow in the situation. What is proposed for single-payer healthcare is different only in the sense of it being a pooled contingency fund agreed on by the taxpayers. The government's main responsibility is to make sure that we get our money's worth.

@ Shax

Yeah, it probably is. But I really want that answer. Preferably an honest one. On the lighter side of things we might be approaching a site record for longest discussion because of him.

Edit:

Whoops. Missed housing.

Similarly there are bylaws ensuring that any housing built must live up to certain standards, and rented apartments in particular must maintain their condition if they wish to remain commercially available.

There's been talk about creating partally subsidized housing for temporary use by the poor, but that's going nowhere. That particular issue ecompasses a broader problem with wages being inequal to the cost of living. Also a problem but not tangent to the discussion is the unrealistic expectation for people without homes to get jobs when a lack of an address would make that close to impossible. If you don't 'couch surf' and list a friend or family member's address as your home you're essentially screwed. If you walk into a building looking like you've spent the week sleeping under a bridge security will toss you out before you open your mouth to ask if they're hiring.

Should the government provide that? It's a topic of debate that will not proceed unless the majority of the citizenship reaches a conclusion. Could they do that without our consent? No. Not really. Should they provide *permanent* housing for everyone? No. That's not feasible. Even the subsidized housing under discussion would not be free of charge, simply much more affordable. Should the government have it's own commercially available housing for rent? Sure, if it recoups the expenses of construction and is provable to provide a continued income they can put a proposal to the taxpayers to vote on. If it passes then they can go right ahead.

I notice you include both as a requirement for 'healthcare' but I don't see the connection unless you really play around with the definition until it's unrecognizable. You seem to be describing a standard of living rather than hospital services and medical administration, which are the subject of discussion here. A stricter set of standards and guidelines for pharmaceutical manufacturers would also fall outside of this discussion despite it's much closer association to healthcare than your poor analogies.

There. An answer for your questions. Whether it satisfies you is your choice. Your turn. And please, no answering with another unrelated question.

old comment by Passerby

I'm not trying to taunt these people, I really want to know how they think these dots connect and dominos fall.

What reason do they have to believe hospitals' daily operations will change so radically and so illogically? What manner of intrusion are they expecting into their personal lives? How is it fundamentally different to pay a monthly fee to an HMO than to take a slightly smaller hit at tax time? How is it possible for some people to think that con artists will be able to live somehow solely off the avails of healthcare? (Do they mean medical insurance claims or do they think people take up permanent residence at a hospital?) Why do people imagine that suddenly illegal immigrants and hobos will flood the hospitals perpetually? How is it that people believe the Average Joe will find it nigh impossible to be treated? And really, how do so many people believe both of these things at once?

I honestly don't know and understanding how they think would help me present my case better or at the very least I wouldn't be sitting in this chair scratching my head and wondering.

Why is the government trusted to do one thing, but not the other? Even though the other thing is structurally identical to the first?

Hell, can someone at FSTDT tell me that? Or are you all as in the dark about which tracks that train of thought runs on as I am?

old comment by

Upon seeing a news piece on how the state of Georgia handled child protective services, I may now have a clue where these people might be coming from.

It was a government agency in name only and ran a for-profit venture in literally kidnapping and selling children. Somehow it's power was never suspended while it was under criminal investigation, and it even took possession of the children of the attorney prosecuting them as vengeance. You'd think the federal government would have stepped in to investigate the claims, if only on the grounds that the treasury was being bilked out of millions by the intentionally unscrupulous practices of a single state. Not one person stopped to say "What the fuck is this shit?" After looking at expense reports and legal challenges. Nobody was doing their actual job.

I could not fathom such a thing happening because I live in a country with some measure of oversight and despite the best efforts of some of our politicians the government isn't out to make a buck. Apparantly, even American non-profits have a profit motive that overshadows their mission statement. One person getting away with something this monstrous would be a shock, but this was an effort in grand concert. So very many like-minded individuals looking at people as merely a resource to leverage for cash.

I hadn't realized just how fundamentally different we could be and just how terrifying the depths of corruption and incompetence can truly become.

No, it's worse than that. Something even more sinister lies at the heart of this disconnect, almost like this behavior shouldn't be shocking but expected or even condoned for the simple fact that it made money. As though operating on the mindset that their services were already paid for through regular funding and needed to earn their keep rather than widen their profit margin would have been the greater insanity.

As though every time someone says outlandish abuse and expansion of power is inevitable they're saying it on the suddenly terrifying basis of "That's what I'd do, given the chance."

What if that's what everyone's afraid of... because that's exactly how far the average American would go for personal gain, the average American wouldn't be bothered to stop such abuse so long as they remained unaffected or got a piece of the action, the average American was so cut-throat they couldn't imagine themselves doing any different let alone someone who held greater power.

I don't want to believe that. But that would explain everything.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Cuba spends as much on healthcare as military spending. Thus the chance of seeing a Cuban with bad teeth is as likely as... well, hen's teeth.

It's said that Cuba's medical universities are making great leaps in Stem Cell, nay Gene-based therapy research.

A few years ago, a Spanish woman had a replacement windpipe surgically implanted, after a pioneering British technique was invented that generated a new windpipe - via Stem Cells taken from her own bone marrow (thus completely eliminating the transplanted organ/tissue rejection problems that previously arose). We in the UK have the National Health Service. From the late 1940s.

It's said that China is leaps & bounds ahead of the USA in Stem Cell research. Also Gene therapy research.

See you on that plane to Havana, London, or Beijing, Jingypoos, when you need that vital medical treatment that doesn't exist in your own country.

...oh, and one more thing (emphasis added):

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" --Sarah Palin, admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada's single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html

I love the smell of annihilated arguments in the morning. Smells like... victory.

Jinger Jarrett #fundie blog.101christian.com

290 comments

Confused?