Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Universal Health Care

Grandpa, what do people mean when they say they want Universal health care?

Grandpa just chuckled as he said;

"Universal health care, like a lot of issues, is very controversial issue debated heavily and heatedly in the country now days. Some have even proposed that it is a right that every person should possess therefore it is the responsibility of government to pay for it. Yet, when I hear that I never hear a reason as to why it should be considered as a right. I hear a lot of emotional pleas but none based on reason.

Rights are possessions. Rights recognized, also recognize that there are responsibilities on the part of the entity that possesses that right. Rights do not free the possessor of any responsibility. With responsibility come obligations to fulfill all that the responsibility entails. The Constitution recognizes that all rights belong to one of three entities, the federal government, the state government, and the people.

Rights are not determinable by affordability. Rights cannot be bought nor can they be sold. They can only be recognized as already existing and possessed or denied by law. While all rights may be considered as universally possessed, it does not require that the ability to exercise those rights must exist also. Reasons as to why a right is not or cannot be exercised can vary from person to person but each would still possess the right itself. Personal principles in regards to that right may be one reason that a person will not exercise a right but even that does not deny the fact of the possession of that right. Physical abilities may be another reason.

The big problem in the debate over health care is who possesses the rights in regards to it. Does the federal government have the right to provide Universal health care to its citizens? By my understanding of it the only answer I can give is no it does not have that right. Does the federal government have the right to enact laws requiring universal health care by some other means? I would still say that the answer is no. For the federal government to possess that right would require that the states amend the Constitution giving the federal government that right.

In recognition that the states could amend the Constitution giving the federal government that right it can be declared that the states do have the right to provide universal health care, for they cannot give up or transfer a right that they do not possess themselves. The only thing that would prevent them from that right is if the state Constitutions forbids that right to the state governments. Therefore, we can see that universal health care is not a right of the people.

The basis of this is the Constitution itself. All of the powers granted to the federal government were rights that belonged to each of the individual states in the first place. None of the powers granted were rights that belonged to the people.

What can be declared though is that the people of the medical profession have the right to provide their services within the expertise they possess and provide those services to those persons they choose to treat. We can also declare that the people have the right of choice of who they allow to treat them. We can also declare that in the provision of those services the cost of services is a cost as agreed upon by both, the provider and receiver. We can also declare that the receiver of those services has accepted the obligation of payment for those services.

The medical profession is a business just like any other business. It is not a profession of charity. Furthermore, this profession can and does provide charity just as any other profession does. The fact that it deals in the service of health does not mean it should be treated as anything less than a business. When it is not treated as a business, it will have lost its value and declare society's value on its practitioners. We see this now in those countries that already provide universal health care.

The cost we willingly pay determines the value we place on health care and its practitioners. Furthermore, it is the value that we place on health care which determines its price. This is true of any service or commodity offered. As a profession it deserves the same respect as any other business, if not more. We should not degrade or demean the profession by looking at it from a point of view of cost alone. we should respect it enough to look at from a point of view of its value to the individual and to the community. When we learn to do that Universal health care will no longer be an issue. For it is only by looking at the issue from a point of view of cost to the consumer does it appear to be a viable solution.

Now, before I finish, I might declare that I acknowledge that, as a citizen, I do not have the right of interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court possesses that right. Furthermore, as a citizen, I know that I may declare disagreement with any decisions but cannot dissent and must abide by any decisions made by that Court. Thus, if anything written is contrary to the decisions of the Court it is not a contradiction to the Constitution but a disagreement to the decision made.

Does what I say make sense to you, boy?"

I just chuckled as I replied; "Most of it, yes, grandpa. The rest will come in time as I have learned already when you have tried to explain something."


Average American said...

With considerable thought and head-scratching, this post makes sense to me. Does Grandpa expect bleeding heart liberals to understand more than one word of it?

Good post Griper.


The Griper said...

he laughs, not really, AA, they are too dominated by emotions on the issue.

tweetey30 said...

You know Griper our priveleges we have to get health care is something compared to other countries where they dont get health care like over in some places in Africa. I do my volunteering finding pen pals for the American kids in Africa and most of the kids are sick and dying because they dont have health care. But us here in America have health care systems. Even if it means people take advantage of Medical Assistance or what not the kids most likely have there medical needs taken care of and then when you are older you have through your work for Medical and then retired you have retirement and then most people have a plan there too. Sorry I am ranting on this one. Just some thoughts to go along with your post.

Lista said...

"It is a right that every person should possess."

Well, if we have the right to the pursuit of happiness than it could be argued that we have the right to certain essential tools in that pursuit, one being our health.

Luxuries work better in a Capitalist system because if the price is high, than the consumer can decide not to pay for it, but the necessities that are essential to life do not work as well within capitalism because the consumer can not make the decision not to buy it and thus is at the mercy of the supplier. There are other things that can be done, however, such as imposing price limits and the like.

"It does not require that the ability to exercise those rights must exist also."

Well, what good is it for a person to have a right, if they lack the ability to exercise that right? That's like saying that if you place some food on the other side of the room just outside of the reach of someone who has no arms and legs or is paralyzed from the neck down and has no special wheel chair, than you have done your duty by insisting that he does possess the food. What good is the possession of food, though, if there is no way that he can eat it?

I never thought that I'd say this, yet sometimes I even feel troubled by the extent to which you use the constitution as a Bible in order to define truth. If there is something wrong with the thinking within the Constitution, than it should be amended. The people should do the amending, though, not the government or any group of judges. I'm not going to ever call something absolute, unchangeable truth, though, just because it is currently written in the Constitution.

"The cost we willingly pay"

When someone is on their death bed, the word "willing" does not have the same meaning as when someone willingly pays for something that is a luxury, for people are "willing" to give up everything they own for the sake of preserving life, but should they really be required to? My opinion is no.

The reason I'm opposed to Socialism is because I believe that there are other less extreme solutions, not because I am opposed to all regulation.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court possesses too many "rights" and some of these rights should be given to the people in the form of voting.

"They", Liberals, "are too dominated by emotions on the issue."

Didn't you tell me once, Griper, that I should follow my heart?

Anonymous said...

Obama 101: Health Care for All
Except you and me of course.

The Griper said...

lista, stop being such an absolutist. you accuse me of being black or white on every issue then you turn around and present a black and white argument.

"Didn't you tell me once, Griper, that I should follow my heart?"

yes i did but know the difference. i said "dominated" by emotions which is far different than what you would be doing.

"I never thought that I'd say this, yet sometimes I even feel troubled by the extent to which you use the constitution as a Bible in order to define truth"

when have i ever used the Constitution as a Bible to define "truth"? i'll use the Constitution to define government not truth. i'll use the Constitution to determine the powers and authority that the government is suppose to possess. and i'll use the Constitution to determine where authority belongs when it comes to specific issues.that is the purpose and intent of a written, any written poltical Constitution.

as to all your claims, a person would be a fool to not recognize that they exist. at the same time, it is also foolish to say that just because they exist that it is the the responsibility of the government to solve these problems.

"for people are "willing" to give up everything they own for the sake of preserving life, but should they really be required to? My opinion is no."

why not? look around, lista, what is it that you own that has a greater value on it than the value you place on life? what is it that you own that you are unwilling to exchange for preservation of life?

if life has such importance that we are to allow a thief to come into our home and take whatever he wants instead of risking life to keep it as some would advocate then why isn't the preservation of life worth giving it up? in both cases we end up with no possessions except our lives. and in both cases we will need to start over again accumulating possessions.

"What good is the possession of food, though, if there is no way that he can eat it?"

your analogy is a poor one. the person does not possess the food in your scenario.

a better one using your type of scanario is like a jew or muslim possessing a piece of pork to eat. he has the right to that food but whether or not he will eat it is up to him.
a better analogy using my claim is the fact we have the right to own a gun. a blind person would have no need of one thus more than likely not own one but he would still have the right to own one. a parapelegic would not either but he still would possess the right. a poor person may not be able to buy one because of affordability but he still would possess the right.

to put a biblical twist to it think of Adam and Eve. in the garden God provided for all their needs but once thrown out they had to provide for themselves. God did not take any rights away from them and there was many a thing they could not do once outside of the garden that they capable of doing in the garden. so, my statement stands.

BB-Idaho said...

The general welfare clause (Article 1, section 9) could be understood as supportive of universal healthcare provision.
Most physicians think so:

The Griper said...

i agree bb, and it already has been interpreted in that manner by seeing the Constitution as a living document rather than as a contract.

dcat said...

Yeah we working fools pay more and get less! I get it!

Nice griper.

dcat said...

I think the rich liberals should pay for it all!

Ah what rich liberal? All the ones on welfare with their hands out all the time!

The Griper said...

the fact that Social Security was seen as Constitutional would justify the legality of universal health care.

Anonymous said...

It's really scary the way healthcare is becoming so... utilitarian. I personally don't like the government being able to say who gets it and who doesn't.

I quote Sean Hannity: "The government's role is to protect us and leave us alone!"

The Griper said...

i'd say that the federal government is intended to be the voice of the states collectively in regards to those issues that the states gave up the right to decide on an indivisual basis. it's other responsibility is to protect the citizens from an abusive government.

Mike's America said...

What good will it do to have universal health care if we die waiting for the operation needed to save our lives?

Kris said...

hi Griper -

Thanks for visiting my place.

I posted about this very thing..Happy Anniversary NHS. In it I spoke about the failed systems in Canada and England and the misconceptions of our health care system by people from other countries. (if you check it out go to my topics and pick health care)

I think when you said:

Rights are not determinable by affordability.

You said a lot.

Rights are things that are God given and then recognized by the gov. through the constitution. I do think we should take care of the less fortunate, but we should not legislate that all people are owed this. This could become a very slippery slope.

As a child my parents to us to the free clinic for our shots and the dental college for our dental needs. We were part of the uninsured in America for much of my growing up years. My parents found a way to take care of our needs through provided charities and discount alternatives. This is still available today. It may not be fast and convenient, but it is available.


Gayle said...

This is an extremely scary truth: "the fact that Social Security was seen as Constitutional would justify the legality of universal health care." Ugh!

I agree with Mike. I've read too many horror stories about long waits for patients with life or death problems in both Canada and England to ever want universal health care. A canadian friend of mine's father died because he couldn't get to the doctor in time. I'm totally against it.

Lista said...

Obama 101: cripple the economy with taxes and than create more and more programs to secure dependency on government.

My position is basically in the middle. That's not black and white. That's what lies between the black and white.

It is not always so easy to distinguish between those who follow their heart and those who are "dominated by emotions", though I do agree with you that many liberals, and very possibly most, are indeed "dominated by emotions".

As to the Constitution, I never realized before that there are things within it that I do not 100% agree with until I started talking to you. I never thought there would come a day in which I would say, "Well, maybe there are things in the Constitution that need to be aminded.", yet talking to you has made me see some things in the Constitution that have really made me start thinking about it.

I do not think that it is wrong for a Government to work towards solving some of the nations ills. The whole Republican/Democratic debate can be summed up in the question of exactly how much or how little the Government should do. One extreme is practically nothing, the other is practically everything. Once again, I feel the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Just because the preservation of life is worth more than all that we own, does not mean that what we own has no value. Loosing all that one has is a significant loss. When it happens, it is more like mourning someone's death than people are willing to admit.

The Government offers protection from crime, burglary and fire, why not also from the devastation of extreme, out of control costs. You say, no, but why not? What's the difference between that and the lose of one's home due to fire?

You're probably going to say that in a lot of fires, not every home is saved, so I'll answer you in advance. Yes, this is true, but it is not because the Government has just sat there and done absolutely nothing.

Insurance also protects against these things, yet if insurance is more than people can afford, then there is a serious problem. If this is not a Governmental issue, than why do they bother to offer fire and police protection? Just how bad does something have to be in order to justify Government involvement?

If you want to use an analogy that matches my point, you must use one that illustrates lack of ability, not choice. When lack of ability is present the "right" offered is useless.

Lista said...

I got an interesting thought in relation to Sean Hannity's quote.

"The government's role is to protect us and leave us alone!"

The Government does not protect by leaving criminals alone. Sometimes the Government does things to protect not just individuals, but also the economy. That is why it does things such as breaking up monopolies. In doing so, however, it does not leave the business that has the monopoly alone and yet unfortunately the intrusion is necessary.

Mike's America,
Exactly. Good point.

Thanks for coming by my blog. It's nice to see you here as well.

Though the "slippery slope" idea is very popular and has practically become universally accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike, unfortunately, it has a tendency to prevent any compromise from being made by either side. In order to get things done, however, and avoid excessive gridlock, both sides have to give a little. Otherwise nothing will ever be accomplished.

Like I said earlier, perhaps we have a few things in the Constitution that need to be amended.

The Griper said...

"you must use one that illustrates lack of ability, not choice"

i did. if you look again at my analogy you'll see that i presented it in that manner. both religions forbid the eating of pork. to them there is no choice. lacking in ability comes in many forms, lista, not just physical or mental.

"When lack of ability is present the "right" offered is useless."

it is not a matter of rights offered. it is a matter of rights possessed. a pacifist would consider the right to bear arms as a useless right also but he still possesses that right. and i would not want to deny him of that right because to do so would deny me of that right also. and i would not declare his having that right as useless for the same reason.

you want to call yurself a middle of the roader but you present extreme solutions to problems. that isn't being in the middle. that is being in the extremes and what extreme you are on is dependent upon the problem. a middle of the roader solution would be one that neither extreme agrees with on any problem.

Lista said...

Ok, than I'll rephrase; "When lack of ability is present, Rights 'possessed' are useless 'to that person'."; same difference.

Rights are possessed because the government has decided to give and honor them, yet they are given in the hope of benefiting individuals and of solving the problems that the lack of these rights creates. For example, when the right to bear arms is taken away, the government can take control.

There is nothing at all wrong with the Government helping out those who, for whatever reason, struggle in a Capitalist society. What ever can be reasonably done with out crippling the economy, should be done. The only reason for saying no to this would be greed. The problem with Liberals is that they take this idea too far and do not care what effect it has on the economy.

Interestingly, they do care about the environment, yet not about the economy. That seems like such an odd distinction.

Give me an example of what solution I have offered that is extreme. My hunch is that you have misunderstood me if you think I said something that's extreme.

The Griper said...

"...yet they are given in the hope of benefiting individuals and of solving the problems that the lack of these rights creates"

rights are the recognition of resposibility and obligation.

we have a right to bear arms but we have a responsibility and obligation to not abuse that right by using those arms in a abusive manner like murdering someone.

we have a right to free speech but we must use that right responsibly by knowing we have an obligation not to slander someone or commit perjury.

the declaration of rights only declares where responsibility lies, whether it be the federal government, the state government or the people themselves.

the extremes of government are total control or no control. total control can be seen in terms of time as well as of issue itself.

the use of the words everyone or everything is indicative of total control. the other extreme declares noone or nothing. in terms of time it would be never or forever. the middle would declare some for some time.

you want the government to care for everyone that fits your criteria forever as needed. so do socialists except they want to expand that idea.

BB-Idaho said...

So, this Fannie Mae thing, which as near as I can tell is another taxpayer bailout: Socialist?
Constituional? Inevitable? Unnecessary? ..and since the major holder is China..diplomatic?
As you can tell, I'm a little confused about the whole thing..
hey Grandpa, whassup? :)

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
"Rights are the recognition of responsibility and obligation."

The handicapped and disabled can not. No, I did not say will not. I said can not meet all the "Responsibility and Obligation" requirements.

I do agree with your statements about responsibly using our rights in relation to guns and speech and you have correctly called "Total Control or No Control" extremes and the terms "Everyone, Everything, No One, Nothing, Never and Forever", and also Always are also often associated with extremes, yet this argument doesn't always work.

I guess I do think that the Government really is for everyone and not just for some. Your argument is odd, though, because if we carry this to it's furthest conclusion, than if all but one within a room is included in the group and someone decides to go over and invite the one standing off to the side to join the group, this person would be considered an extremist. Forgive me, but that just seems like such an odd conclusion.

Should we conclude that if a family feeds ALL of their children, instead of just some of them, they are extremists? Or should I say if they feed EVERY ONE in the family and not just some, they are extremists. Think about what you are saying, Griper, for it doesn't always work.

The Griper said...

we are talking about government and the principles of governing a society. i was addressing your idea of extremism vs middle of the road. none of your examples are relevant.

the extreme points are government controls everybody or the government controls nobody. the middle then would be that the government control some but not all.

freedom at its extreme point would be no government and each controls his own destiny. and that would include those you speak of too that need help.

in order to maintain the greatest of freedom those who need help would seek that help from anyplace except government.

and i'll let you in on a little secret. before you were born, people who went to government and relied on government for help were considered as second class citizens. they were looked as being contemptable even by their peers in the same situation. if you wanted the respect of others you solved your own problems. and family took care of their own.
possessions wasn't as important then, family was. when a disaster struck a family then you could rely on the community to help. and community was not a synonym for government.

that is one of the biggest accomplishments of liberals, changing the meaning of words so that it appears to have a meaning to make government control respectable.

look at your favorite gripe, abortion. liberals present it in such a way so as to make it appear that abortion is something to be respected not looked down upon as contemptable.

so, when you take a position on an issue, lista, ask yourself one question, which extreme would approve of your position?

as for compromise, remember this. today, compromise always favors the extemist of the left, never the extremists of the right.

in today's politics extremist of the left will not permit compromise that favors the right. and in today's politics the right cannot prevent compromise that favors the left.

so, if you see me as an absolutist it is only because i will not, by compromise, aid and abet the left from attaining their ultimate goal, complete government control over the people. i value freedom too much. and freedom recognizes there are consequences and i accept those consequences. and if i value freedom for myself then i must also value it for everyone else. thus i must assume they are willing to accept the consequences that comes with freedom also.

you said earlier that rights are something to benefit from. well. rights also requires that you accept the consequences of possessing them also. it isn't a one way street. you can't just benefit from them then turn around and expect others to pay the consequences of them and still call them rights.

The Griper said...

i asked grandpa and he just looked at me then burst out laughing. then said, "all of it bb, and shows the hypocricy within government itself."

as far as grandpa feels, the federal government should never have created that agency in the first place.

The Griper said...

"My position is basically in the middle. That's not black and white. That's what lies between the black and white"

remember this, what lies between black and white is gray. and gray is made of of parts of black and parts of white. the gray that results is dependent by how much black and white is used.

Lista said...

My examples are very relevant if you think of society as one huge family and anyway, I was not talking about control, but offering help.

The idea of the Government controlling some, but not all, though, is accurate, for as long as one of the roles of the Government is to protect, then the Government should only exercise control over those who threaten to disrupt the safety of the citizens or the economy.

The extreme of "No Government" is Anarchy. No body wants that.

We have already had the Government Programs verses Private Charity discussion and I'm not sure if I'm ready for a discussion on the positives and negatives of things relating to the "Good Old Days".

As to what you said about Abortion, just because I do not consider myself extreme does not mean that I am not a Republican. One does not have to be an extremist to believe in Pro-Life, nor to be a Republican. I have no intention of choosing between the extremes. I don't have to.

Basically, what you are saying implies that it is the liberal's turn to start compromising and that is correct.

The people who pay the biggest consequences for freedom are those who lack the abilities needed in order to survive in a Capitalist Society. Those who thrive in such a setting pay consequences that are minimal.

I'm not sure what your point is about gray being "parts of black and parts of white" is getting out. I agree with that, but so?

I really do wish that you and I could understand each other better, Griper. I feel frustrated at times because we don't, but so is life. Oh well.

BB-Idaho said...

Gray. Interesting, drab...at
http://www.applepainter.com/Chap05/index.php we learn that
"When any two colors are truly opposite (at the point of strongest contrast), their admixture* will produce a perfectly neutral gray. Though this may be accepted as indisputable, it can be easily proven with scientific accuracy by arranging two opposite colors on a disc in proportions relative to the Chroma strength of each and revolving them with such rapidity that we cannot see them separately and they become mixed. If they are truly opposite, they will unite in a perfect gray." ..thus any two complementary colors make gray.
Of course, I will defer to your
black/white/gray having satisfied
my perfervid curiosity. Except to note, as Granpa no doubt would observe, the phenomenon in England would result in grey rather than gray. :)

The Griper said...

ohhh i understand your position quite well. you see government from the viewpoint of the needs of people and believe it should help those who you believe cannot help themselves. and to you the needs of those people are more important than whether or not the government is allowed to help.

me, i look at government from the point of view of what power and authority it has based upon my understanding of the Constitution.
and if it doesn't have the authority to help certain persons then i must look elsewhere for that help. but, in order for this to happen i must first believe that there is help elsewhere too.

one more thing to understand is that we are speaking of the federal government not the state governments or local governments. for, by Constitution, the federal governmental powers and authority is limited.

and when the federal government goes beyond what it is allowed to do then it is abusing its right of rule. and once that happens we are no longer living under a Constitutional government.

so, if i be an extremist in my beliefs it is only in that regard. and in that regard, yes, i am very black and white on that issue. too many men have sacrificed their lives for the beliefs found in that document for me to be any otherwise.

The Griper said...

he smiles at bb then nods.
the point i was getting at is the fact that on some issues a person may take a black stance while on other issues a white stance. thus, having both within him he now is seen as a blend of both.

Lista said...

As to the "Good Old Days", it was pretty neat that the people within communities had a tendency to help each other, but I don't know that I agree with all of the attitudes that were held by people in the "Good Old Days". Some of these attitudes were quite judgmental.

What's in the Constitution that forbids the Government from helping people? How can that be, for they do help people?

I did not realize that we were talking about a Federal verses State issue. I thought we were just talking about Government in general.

If it is the States that do the things that really matter in any given area, than maybe the News Media should make a bigger deal about State elections than they do. For the most part, it is the Federal elections that get all the attention, but if the Federal Government is so limited, than maybe we have our whole focus wrong when it comes to elections.

The Griper said...

" I thought we were just talking about Government in general."

when we refer to the Constitution we usually are referring to the U.S. Constitution. that constitution deals primarily with the federal government. the states have their own constitutions.

if we were to eliminate the federal government we would also be tearing up that Constitution for it would serve no purpose any longer. so, when we speak in terms of the US Constitution we are also speaking of the federal government mainly.

"Some of these attitudes were quite judgmental."

yes that is true but that same statement can still apply today also.

"How can that be, for they do help people?"

yes that is also true. but if you look at history, that help, like you speak of, only began back in the roosevelt era as a means to combat the depression. so, all of these programs have been incorporated into the federal government in only the last 70 years beginning with the SS ACT. so you see how fast the federal government has grown in such a short time.

" For the most part, it is the Federal elections that get all the attention..."

more precisely, lista, the presidential elections get all the focus. and the reason for that is, is because the president is the only one that is elected on a national basis. every other elected representative are elected on a state basis.

so, when you hear talk about smaller government what they are proposing is giving back to the states the powers taken away from them in the last years and leaving the federal government those powers as it was intended to have. and how were those powers divided? in summation the federal government waas to deal with all problems outside of the borders of the states. and the state government was to deal with all problems within their own borders.

Lista said...

When I mentioned judgmental attitudes, I was referring to the attitudes of those you mentioned in one of your above comments in that "Before you were born, people who went to Government and relied on Government for help were considered as second class citizens.".

There is not nearly enough news coverage relating to local elections. All we get is these stupid short TV adds supporting one side or the other, no debates or long speeches. It's pathetic and then they wonder why more people do not show up to vote.

The Griper said...

people are always judgmental, lista. they are just as judgmental today as they were then. the reasons may differ but that is all. and while being judgmental in today's society is seen as a negative it also can be a positive because people are sensitive to how others think of them. it can act as a preventive as well as an incentive too.

"There is not nearly enough news coverage relating to local elections"

there is a direct correlation between press coverage and money spent on elections, lista.

Lista said...

The Bible instructs us not to judge. We are told to "Judge not, that we be not judged". I'll look up the references later. This is not a positive. It is a negative. Love motivates too. Those who feel loved have more self-esteem and are better able to say no to all sorts of different temptations. Judgmental attitudes are destructive and are just as likely, if not more so, to lead to rebellion, as to right behavior.

The Griper said...

love doesn't work all the time, lista. there are those who would look upon it as a sign of weakness. just as being judgmental doesn't work all the time.

as for biblical quotes i won't srgue them. i know the quote.

Lista said...

Well, I like to follow what the Bible says. Let them call me weak if they want to. I don't care. There are other quotes that come to mind. The reason why I look them up is because I would actually whether not misquote them.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1, KJV)

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corintians 3:6, NIV)

"21) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.', 22) But I say unto you, ‘That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca’, shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool’, shall be in danger of hell fire.'" (Matthew 5:21-22, KJV)

"37) Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38) This is the first and great commandment. 39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40, KJV)

BB-Idaho said...

The judge not thing is found in
Matt 7:1, paraphrased in Luke 6:7
and similarly written in James 4:12
For our edification, though, there is
"In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." ~ Leviticus 19:15
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." ~ 1 Corinthians 2:15.
"Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" ~ 1 Corinthians 6:3
..off to read through the Book Of Judges...:)

Lista said...

Wow! BB,
I'm impressed. You seem to know your Bible.

Judges is a rather crude book. There was a lot a brutality back in those days.

I'm almost tempted to analyze these verses, for you haven't quoted the entire verse in some cases, yet it's a little off subject and I try to be brief when I'm off subject. I'm not sure what version of the Bible you used. I was surprised when I realized that it is not King James.

The Luke reference is Luke 6:37. The Greek and Hebrew words are Mishpat (Hebrew), Krino, Anakrino and Kriterion (Greek). Maybe I'll post on this. We'll see. I can't do it here, though, I'm off subject and am about to get into trouble with the boss. lol. :)

The Griper said...

"I'm off subject and am about to get into trouble with the boss. lol. :)"

he chuckles, tsk tsk tsk, lista, as he shakes his finger at her. then runs and hides.

if you two want to continue this thread, go ahead with my blessings. i'll just sit and listen from now on.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster