Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
explorerx7

Why is money a consideration over compassion in a christian society?

Recommended Posts

We live in a Christian society every day we are reminded of the virtues of Jesus Christ. It's difficult to understand that in a Christian society we are able to let people die because they don't have money to pay for the intervention that would probably save their lives. I have seen people turned away from hospitals, (I can testify that this has happened in my country) when they are in a critical medical crisis which could result in their death because they don't have to required fee for their treatment. I guess that in this instance thirty pieces of silver is more valuable than life and the examples of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We live in a Christian society every day we are reminded of the virtues of Jesus Christ. It's difficult to understand that in a Christian society we are able to let people die because they don't have money to pay for the intervention that would probably save their lives. I have seen people turned away from hospitals, (I can testify that this has happened in my country) when they are in a critical medical crisis which could result in their death because they don't have to required fee for their treatment. I guess that in this instance thirty pieces of silver is more valuable than life and the examples of Jesus.

 

We're (U.S.) far from a Christian society,

 

I don't think hospitals can turn people away here in the U.S. But, the more the U.S. taxes the citizens the less in charity they have to give away. That's one of the beefs I have. I give to charity, however, I don't like my money going to the government to do what I should do. And I do not agree with every person they give my money to. For example, Planned Parenthood, the leader in abortion.

 

Personally, I don't get free health care for everyone. Nobody here can be turned away from hospitals. Though they are financially obligated or accountable for the bills. Free health care passes that accountability off on other people. I just don't get that.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I don't get free health care for everyone. Nobody here can be turned away from hospitals. Though they are financially obligated or accountable for the bills. Free health care passes that accountability off on other people. I just don't get that.

Over here the media narrative is full of horror stories of US citizens unable to get healthcare or treatment because they don't have funds or don't want to bankrupt their families. It's a matter of point of view.

 

There is one misapprehension in your post: the NHS is not "free healthcare". Every resident of the UK pays into National insurance, which is used to fund it. You can take payment breaks for long term sickness, which I have had to do (and just had to sort out the bill for mine for the next tax year. Ouch.), but you still have to make it up or it is taken out of things like your pension. It works like normal insurance: I paid mine for years when I wasn't sick and it was used to pay for those who were. When I was ill, I took a payment break, and other people's payments paid for my treatment. It is closer to collective insurance than free. The real advantage is that medication is cheaper over here because if the drug companies overcharge they lose custom from an entire country or can end up in government trouble (see below) which saves a lot of money in treatment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here the media narrative is full of horror stories of US citizens unable to get healthcare or treatment because they don't have funds or don't want to bankrupt their families. It's a matter of point of view.

 

There is one misapprehension in your post: the NHS is not "free healthcare". Every resident of the UK pays into National insurance, which is used to fund it. You can take payment breaks for long term sickness, which I have had to do (and just had to sort out the bill for mine for the next tax year. Ouch.), but you still have to make it up or it is taken out of things like your pension. It works like normal insurance: I paid mine for years when I wasn't sick and it was used to pay for those who were. When I was ill, I took a payment break, and other people's payments paid for my treatment. It is closer to collective insurance than free. The real advantage is that medication is cheaper over here because if the drug companies overcharge they lose custom from an entire country or can end up in government trouble (see below) which saves a lot of money in treatment.

 

If I could only share the stories I hear every day. My wife works in the financial aid department in an Oncology medical foundation. You'd be surprised how many people elect to pay the penalty and not purchase health care insurance. In turn they pass it off to the tax payer.

 

A bankruptcy is a right (only so many can be claimed in a period of time). If a person doesn't pay their financial obligations then they should be penalized, the bill shouldn't be pushed off onto other people. Charity, there are many charity foundations that have far more stringent guidelines than the government. They look at "how much" a person makes and determines whether or not they can afford to buy insurance, and reject them if they could but made poor decisions not to.

 

Last week my wife shared with me a story about John Doe that had no insurance. John Doe makes 30 thousand a month and decided not to purchase insurance. He'd rather pay a couple of thousand dollars a year in penalty. He was diagnosed as having Cancer unexpectedly. What do people think insurance is? You don't wait until after you have a diagnosis and then rely on no prior conditions set by law! How do you feel about paying the medical bills for someone that makes 30 grand a month. True story...... we did.

 

Chatterbox, say you were on the beach enjoying a nice sandwich you packed for yourself. And John Doe walks up and demands your sandwich. Maybe you say no, and then comes Mr POTUS on his horse and puts a gun to your head demanding that you give your sandwich to John Doe. The compulsion strips the virtue out of the transaction. You did not give to charity. And besides that and to my case, perhaps John Doe feels like he is entitled to more than your sandwich now, maybe two more, and your softdrink. Not to mention Mr POTUS never actually gave his own sandwich, but gave your sandwich to John Doe. Maybe he'll give the shirt off your back and not his! Wow, so charitable!

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last week my wife shared with me a story about John Doe that had no insurance. John Doe makes 30 thousand a month and decided not to purchase insurance. He'd rather pay a couple of thousand dollars a year in penalty. He was diagnosed as having Cancer unexpectedly. What do people think insurance is? You don't wait until after you have a diagnosis and then rely on no prior conditions set by law! How do you feel about paying the medical bills for someone that makes 30 grand a month. True story...... we did.

Absolutely fine, because as I pointed out there is no gun to anyone's head. When I was healthy my NI payments almost certainly covered the treatment of people better off than me, and now I am ill their payments cover mine. They are perfectly free to opt out of NI and get their own private insurance (which works the same way as US healthcare but is cheaper as they benefit from the NHS negotiated prices). Most people who hold that private insurance still pay their NI even though they are never going to use it, because a healthy population and people not putting off seeing the doctor because of cost benefits them. View it more as church tithing: you don't have to give, but giving benefits everyone. Sometimes the people who put in are not the people who take out, and sometimes they eventually are.

 

I think there's also a cost difference: NI costs about £600 a year at the basic level of opt-in and that covers everything, including chronic conditions. Compared to the prices I have heard for US insurance that's incredibly affordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is one big serious issue here in India as well. Many people die everyday only because of the lack of money that is needed for medical support. No law has been created to prevent this from happening.

 

Sadly the condition of all the Government hospitals is really horrible and the private ones are above the reach of a common man. I think money is really important if one wants to fight a diseased condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We live in a Christian society every day we are reminded of the virtues of Jesus Christ. It's difficult to understand that in a Christian society we are able to let people die because they don't have money to pay for the intervention that would probably save their lives. I have seen people turned away from hospitals, (I can testify that this has happened in my country) when they are in a critical medical crisis which could result in their death because they don't have to required fee for their treatment. I guess that in this instance thirty pieces of silver is more valuable than life and the examples of Jesus.

 

I'm not sure what Christian society you are referring to.

 

I feel for people who can't afford to meet their needs, truly. You also have to look at it from the other side though. A hospital isn't a charity. They can't afford to treat everyone for free, or they will close down. Then, there won't be a hospital at all.

 

Here in the US they aren't supposed to turn away anyone with a life-threatening emergency, but they will most likely just stabilize the person and move them along.

 

There are programs available for the needy, including Christian clinics that off free health care. There are also some good charities out there that try to help. I would prefer to donate to these than to have my money taken to give to programs that I don't agree with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would prefer to donate to these than to have my money taken to give to programs that I don't agree with.

 

Same here. Free health care contributes to the death rate of the unborn. I'd be "more willing" to pay in a free health care system that did not fund the murder of the unborn. I am willing to bet that the more accessible and less expensive abortion is, the higher the abortion rate.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Same here. Free health care contributes to the death rate of the unborn. I'd be "more willing" to pay in a free health care system that did not fund the murder of the unborn. I am willing to bet that the more accessible and less expensive abortion is, the higher the abortion rate.

 

God bless,

William

Then I take it you also don't donate to overseas and famine relief efforts as a fair amount of that gets diverted to weapons used to commit systematic murder. Live Aid for example was notorious for this, as the famine wasn't natural and the money helped keep the person responsible in power and buy him weapons.

 

I take the view that if I give money to help people, and some of it is used in a way I don't like, I can at least know that others were saved by it. The alternative is to give nothing at all, and that is not charitable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take the view that if I give money to help people, and some of it is used in a way I don't like, I can at least know that others were saved by it. The alternative is to give nothing at all, and that is not charitable.

 

I think there is another alternative. Find another source to give your donations. There is often more than one charity per cause. If you can find one that uses the money in ways that you approve of then it's all good.

 

If there is only one way to donate, and I don't agree with it, I'm not going to donate. I guess I'll just have to pray more and donate elsewhere. There is always someone that could use the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I take it you also don't donate to overseas and famine relief efforts as a fair amount of that gets diverted to weapons used to commit systematic murder.

 

Seems we differ as to what murder and killing is. I expect my taxes to go overseas and actively combat evil. However, I do not consider taxes charity, and that's why I give to charity which is separate from taxes and my tithe. For example, in the 1990s Somalia drug lords were using starvation against the people. They were blocking U.N. relief efforts. I expect taxes to go and neutralize that kinda threat which prevented food shipments from reaching starving people.

 

God bless,

William

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is a two edged sword, as one lays claim to a better way of dealing with healthcare and another to the direction that charity should go and just how to manage them both at a affordable level. Should everyone have healthcare? I believe everyone should have access to healthcare and each person should make an honest attempt to cover their costs. Should everyone buy health insurance? Yes, if they can afford to do so which is often the very thing that keeps some people from the very thing they need. I have had insurance and then gone though periods in my life without health insurance do to lack of enough income, but I always made a attempt to pay off my bills even if it took years at $10 a month. Accountability is sorely needed and there is no such thing as free healthcare. Someone is paying the bills through tax payer dollars. Even in Canada, the people pay for their heath care system through higher taxes and services, and goods.

 

Charity, as the older folks used to say begins at home. If each person did an act of kindness everyday or paid it forward, there would be much less starvation and loss of life, and homelessness. The money in the offering plates at churches used to do this needy service, providing access to healthcare and housing the homeless and feeding and clothing the poor. Many organizations provided food and clothing to the needy before the government stepped in. Many churches still send missionaries around the world to spread the good news and help families with food, clothing and shelter. But as more and more of these common place charities were replaced by the government monies, these places often found other ways to spend their donated money. Bigger and fancier churches and a change in some hearts, and often many church's have had to close their doors do to lack of funds or attendance.

 

Just some random thoughts throw out there. What do you think is the best approach to both of these topic's??

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to clarify my previous post. If I'm certain that wrongdoing is occurring, if there is evidence of it, I'll avoid donating.

 

If I don't know it for a fact then I have donated in some cases, It's like giving money to someone on the street when you don't know what they'll do with the money. I pray that the gift will be blessed and use appropriately, but I can't control what the person will do with it once I've given it to them.

 

This is sometimes the case with relief efforts and charity organizations as well. If there is proof of wrongdoing though, I try to steer clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just in Christian societies, but every where from India, predominantly a Hindu country, to Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, money is the main consideration over compassion. You can remain unbeliever yet live a good life if you have money. However, you cannot live a good life just by being a believer with no money. You need money to live life, thus money takes the center stage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, money has become the main thing. The U.S. started out as a 'Christian' nation. But we're not really a Christian society any more.

 

The example of the person on the beach with their sandwich. It's 'his' sandwich, no one has any right taking it away from him. If the person wants to share half the sandwich that's his choice. But when the POTUS comes up and demands that the sandwich be shared, That's not right. It's actually socialism. The 'demander' Does have the right to go get his own sandwich. If he can't afford it, well. .... he might get hungry. If there's a food pantry around, that could be a temporary help. But even That food comes from somewhere. It Is free and there will probably always be people who are hungry / no job, no family around to help. And Maybe the person needing the food Could be hired to sweep a floor or wash a window in order to get the food he needs.

 

Emergency treatment is Usually available, but, many times, only to sustain life.

 

There are no easy answers to health care. But the concept of adequate health care being available to Everyone isn't reasonable. The person making a huge income shouldn't be having to pay - indirectly - for the homeless person.

Sometimes the homeless person Does get sick and Does die on the street or in the ER. And sometimes the person with the huge income gets sick and dies -- because money can't buy good health.

 

I can love the whole neighborhood, but that won't pay my rent or groceries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with William. This is not the only problem with Christian society but it is all over the world. If people are not donating that much money then how the hospitals can provide the services and medicines to the poor patients. If we want to help poor people then we would have to donate more and more. Thousands of innocent children dying every day just because of not having food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no easy answers to health care. But the concept of adequate health care being available to Everyone isn't reasonable. The person making a huge income shouldn't be having to pay - indirectly - for the homeless person.

 

Why not? They can easily afford it; the homeless person can't afford it at all.

 

Before Americans screech "Socialism!!!" maybe they should read Acts 4.34-35:

 

"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The context of that passage. It was the Holy Spirit coming into that body of people that led them to do that.

 

It wasn't the local / state/ federal government stepping in and dictating.

 

When a community - of their own free will -- chooses to do that -- it's a beautiful way of living -- communal living.

 

I was just remembering that here, in the U.S., there are groups -- Pennsylvania Dutch -- in Pa. and another group in Iowa. The Amish community. Distinctive dress and way of living. People are free to come and go. It's their belief system.

 

And then there have been groups headed by a man - last name of Jeffries? several groups in several states -- he was the kingpin who finally ended up in prison. One of his many wives was a minor. He had been operating within the law -- just barely. He went Way over-board in his practices. His way was damaging to people's ability to think for themselves -- decision-making wasn't allowed.

 

And, yes, I'm one of those American's who screech 'Socialism'. Socialism is 'usually' one person or a small group who decide for everyone else what They believe is in the best interest the group. But, really, is there a 'best' income level? And who would be determining what that would be? The person in charge, of course. Absolute power corrupts. Greed / control can be ugly.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The context of that passage. It was the Holy Spirit coming into that body of people that led them to do that.

 

It wasn't the local / state/ federal government stepping in and dictating.

 

I doubt if the Holy Spirit was making a helpful suggestion, which they might like to act on or not. In any case, what happened to Ananias and his wife hardly suggsets that was the Spirit's intention. The ultimate in Government interference, you might say.

 

 

And, yes, I'm one of those American's who screech 'Socialism'. Socialism is 'usually' one person or a small group who decide for everyone else what They believe is in the best interest the group.

 

A small group called the goverment you mean? Well, the making of decisions on behalf of the country as a whole is whar governments do.

 

 

But, really, is there a 'best' income level? And who would be determining what that would be? The person in charge, of course.

 

The more you earn, the more you pay into the communual pot. Simple as that.

 

 

Absolute power corrupts. Greed / control can be ugly.

 

Since when has power in a democracy been absolute?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that at the heart of this issue is an attempt -- or failure as the case may be, to find a balance between compassion and accountability. When compassion is given freely, it is all to easy for the sinful person to take provision for granted. That was and still is a major problem with the welfare system.

 

The early Church, as described in Acts, was balancing compassion and community with accountability. That was the only way it could work.

 

No matter what sinful humanity tries in the way of providing basic needs for everyone, things go wrong, injustice creeps in and innocent people suffer. Pretty much everything has been tried. Feudalism tried to provide the peasant with a living and the lord with a castle, but the lord took too much and the peasant often suffered. Totalitarianism tried to place the government in a position to micromanage everything, but again, absolute power is know to corrupt absolutely and the powerless suffered terribly. Socialism tried to redistribute everything evenly, but then the average person saw no point in striving "for nothing", because they were serving themselves, not God. Scripture admonishes us to "23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving." (Colossians 3:23-24 NIV) Then there is Capitalism, which has proven to be one of the most effective systems of social wealth management, but still the poor suffer. Capitalism is very simply defeated by greed. My husband often states, quite correctly, that most people will not do the right thing unless they are forced to. Therefore, whatever humanity does as guided by the sinful nature, will cause harm to someone.

 

Scripture repeatedly demands mercy, not sacrifice. So as we live our lives, we are challenged to consider mercy, sacrifice, accountability and unintended consequences. In my mind, that means we should take a genuine interest in the well being of others, but we should also carefully consider who is asking, what they are asking for, and what the outcome of out help will be. We don't want to give money to a homeless alcoholic so he can continue to destroy himself. At the same time we don't want to turn our backs on a homeless cancer patient. We really should pay more attention to the elderly who are seen panhandling. It doesn't hurt to talk to the person on the sidewalk holding a sign. I have done exactly that when I had extra money, and I found that 10 minutes and 10 dollars can touch a wounded heart very deeply.

 

I have asked a very troubling question, a question we should all ask ourselves. As Pro-Life Christians, we stand on the value of the life of the unborn. But does there come a point when that child we advocated for grows up, and is now worthless? At what age, then, does that person become expendable? Can we tell the difference between the person whose life has been a long string of impossible circumstances and the criminal who will only bite the hand reached out to them? Do we still have soft enough hearts to take the time and effort to discover the difference?

 

These are not as much questions I posed for debate as they are very personal questions that each of us must ask ourselves and to bring to prayer. These times are getting very evil indeed, but the Lord has us here on Earth, in the times, places and circumstances we find ourselves so that we can carry His Light and somehow stand in the gap. Kindness and compassion are becoming increasingly rare. But then, the darker the night, the more visible the remaining Light is to see... In Christ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st: Wonderful. I found the forum about health care, which deeply interests me.

 

I am from Germany, we have public health care since *very long*, originally not only meant to protect the sick, but to fight down the socialists (chancellor v.Bismarck). So I´m always surprised when considered as socialistic.

 

The German model: Every person getting a wage has to pay a percentage (roundabout 14%). You pay half of it, the other half your employee. There are different public insurance companies one can choose. Spouses and children are free, it is called "familiy-insurance" (bad luck for living together and not being married. No free insurance). Exceptions are very wealthy people and self-employees. They have to choose from private insurance companies.

 

The money goes straight away to insurance and does not end on your account at all. If your employee happens to pay his part not properly, insurance companies will hunt him: They have neither humour nor mercy *hurtful penalties*.

 

On the other hand I can visit the doctor and the dentist without fees. If I want something special not covered by the insurance like professional teeth cleaning or bleaching, I`ll pay for that. EM and hospital do cost a (small) fee to avoid unnessary treatments, but its maximum 280 € pa.. And for medical treatment. If you are too poor, you can get free medicals. One has to prove every year. Bitter are dentures. The insurance companies pay only half of them.

 

People without jobs are insuranced via "Jobcenter", that is tax supplied. Homeless people are worse off. They are not covered, because not registered by Jobcenter.

 

So usually health care has not to be covered by charity.

 

How is home care for the elderly organisized in your countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have asked a very troubling question, a question we should all ask ourselves. As Pro-Life Christians, we stand on the value of the life of the unborn. But does there come a point when that child we advocated for grows up, and is now worthless? At what age, then, does that person become expendable? Can we tell the difference between the person whose life has been a long string of impossible circumstances and the criminal who will only bite the hand reached out to them? Do we still have soft enough hearts to take the time and effort to discover the difference?

 

I just saw Christians out in front of Planned Parenthood, with volunteers that were announcing over a speaker that they themselves would adopt the children. Those that wanted to adopt stood in front of the murder factory as Planned Parenthood advocates alleged that Christians were shaming them. Leave it to a Liberal to advocate the murder of another without penalty.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one thing to condemn abortion and another thing to be there. *well done by those protesters, very brave*

And, @ Meg, I think that that`s the difference. If we leave those mums-to-be all for themselves, with no help, their kids will most likely get in troubles ( for a moment let`s not think about how this special baby was conceived). It is too short only to protest. It is much harder. It takes a long, long effort to establish a surrounding where kids can grow up safe.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is one thing to condemn abortion and another thing to be there. *well done by those protesters, very brave*

And, @ Meg, I think that that`s the difference. If we leave those mums-to-be all for themselves, with no help, their kids will most likely get in troubles ( for a moment let`s not think about how this special baby was conceived). It is too short only to protest. It is much harder. It takes a long, long effort to establish a surrounding where kids can grow up safe.

 

It isn't the job of the State to be the parent. Part of the problem here is that religious adoption agencies have shut down, because under Obama they were forced to allow same sex partnerships to adopt. Not to mention they were required under law to provide insurance to employees which covered abortion.

 

My own personal belief, I think abortion should be illegal, and any illegal abortion should be criminally prosecuted.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: post #19 -- I'm not following your comment on the 1st point. vs 31 of Acts 4 -- it was the Holy Spirit that was leading the group of people to put all their funds / possessions together and make it available to everyone. That way no one would be in need. Didn't Ananias and Sapphira --when they had sold their possessions, lie about how much they had made --kept part of their resources to themselves. Why would they lie about it. Why would they bother to act that way. Their heart attitude needed some adjusting.

 

After reading that passage for the 4th time or so --and your comments. You're saying that the Holy Spirit wasn't simply Suggesting that they all put their belongings together -- it was a command from Him.

 

A question -- is England a socialist government or democracy or what? All I do know is that the U.S. is somewhat of a mess presently. Some of the war torn countries have been more in my radar. The United Kingdom / England hasn't been. (maybe we can cover some of this via email?!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×