Wednesday, December 30, 2009

In Response to a Democrat's "Manifesto"

Update: January 8, 2009

Gabrielle has decided to leave the LDS Church.


There has been a small stir concerning a response I made a few days ago to a blog maintained by a "Mormon Democrat" concerning health-care. This was originally posted here, in response to Gabrielle's home-blog, and then here, in response to Gabrielle's comments on Connor Boyack's blog. I usually target so-called and self-professed 'conservatives' for their own socialist hypocrisy, but this time I decided to go for the self-professed liberal socialist.


The “law of the land which is constitutional” is that law that supports the “principle of freedom in maintaining the rights and privileges” to all mankind (D&C 98:5) and “to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life” (D&C 134:4). According to the liberal/socialist argument, the ‘protection of life’ may be obtained at the expense of my ‘control of property’ through coercive taxation. Furthermore, according to this same argument, one of Christ’s commandments of providing for the poor is followed at the expense of breaking another commandment of stealing and coercion.

The only way this argument is right is if the people are wicked. Scripturally, wickedness is first identified by the refusal to help the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, the afflicted, and the widow and fatherless. Such a refusal to help the poor is repugnant to the Lord; in fact, Hugh Nibley argues that such a refusal to help the poor was the foundational sin that caused Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction. How, then, has the Lord commanded us to go about fixing such a problem? When social inequality exists, how does scripture tell us to fix the problem? Alma, as the High Priest to the Church and the Chief Judge to the Nephite people (thus leading both the religious and political organizations), gives us an excellent example when he saw the great social inequality among his people.

“Yea, he saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted. Now this was great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christ’s sake…” (Alma 4:12-3). Does this sound familiar? Are we currently having great ‘lamantations’ in our own country and among our own people over those in need? Certainly.

Because he led both organizations, Alma was able to either politically or religiously act. I ask, what did he do? Did he pass more laws that chained the people down with heavy taxes? No, such is discussed throughout the Book of Mormon as a condition detested by the Lord. Did he pass laws that tried to create more ‘equality’ among the people? No. Did he do anything politically to extend the arm of government into the affairs of the people to force them to take care of their moral imperative and duty? No. In fact, he completely gave up the judgment seat altogether! What did he then do? He went to preach the word of God!

Before we ridicule this and laugh at such a proposition that preaching the word of God is more influential in changing society than is passing political laws that coerce the individual, first examine WHY he did this.

“And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them” (Alma 4:19). What was Alma’s point? To “stir them up in a remembrance of their duty”. How influential was preaching the word of God as opposed to inflicting artificial ‘equality’ within society through coercion?

“And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just – yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them — therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God” (Alma 30:5). What lead the people to do that which was just? What awakened and stirred the people’s remembrance of their individual duty? Was it positivist law? Was it forced equality? Was it forcing one man into his duty? No, the Lord’s way is established — God will force no man to perform his moral duty.

“Know this, that ev’ry soul is free, to choose his life and what he’ll be; For this eternal truth is giv’n: That God will force no man to heav’n. He’ll call, persuade, direct aright, And bless with wisdom, love, and light, in nameless ways be good and kind, but never force the human mind. Freedom and reason make us men; Take these away, what are we then? Mere animals, and just as well the beasts may think of heav’n or hell. May we no more our pow’rs abuse, But ways of truth and goodness choose; Our God is pleased when we improve His grace and seek his perfect love.” Of a truth, the Lord is pleased when we obey the commandments and take care of those in need; however, he is particular in how we obey such commandments.

Alma’s example shows us that the power of a testimony in Christ can convert the soul to do that which is just by its own inner moral duty. Socialism’s entire structure denies this real possibility of changing the course of humanity through the gospel of Christ to allow man to be morally responsible without being coerced into such duty. Was this not the fault of the very people who killed the Christ? Did not the Pharisees and Sadducees of Christ’s day believe that the ‘Messiah’ would come to rule in political matters? Yet Christ’s real message was for the individual to morally act and take personal accountability and thus throw of their own chains. While the Pharisees and Sadducees looked to man’s government as their solution, Christ changed people’s hearts who then took themselves out of their own bad situations. After all, this is a message continually taught by our own Church leaders: The world takes a man out of the slums, but the gospel of Christ takes the slums out of the man who then takes himself out of his own slums. There are several examples in the Book of Mormon alone that re-illustrate this exact principle. It is beyond contest.

So, here we are. A national dilemma where we have great social inequality. One side is admittedly prideful and doesn’t want to be bothered, the other side is admittedly open to thievery to achieve their ideological ends. Tell me, in this system, where is the spirit of God? I contend that both sides are wrong, and I side with the principle of freedom and liberty. Where in all this debacle is the spirit of God that influences by “persuasion, long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:41-2)? This is the way to provide for the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. Where are the members of the Church, on the right and left political spectrum, who are out bearing-down testimony and providing for the poor, the sick, the afflicted, and all those in need? What happened to ‘every member a missionary’? As President Benson (the most hated Apostle and Prophet among most liberal members, and even some conservative members) said,

“Now part of the reason why we do not have sufficient priesthood bearers to save the Constitution, let alone to shake the powers of hell, because, I fear, unlike Moroni, our souls do not joy in keeping our country free, and we are not firm in the faith of Christ, nor have we sworn with an oath to defend our rights.”

Interesting. We lack the spirit, trust, and testimony necessary to do what Alma did. We lack the ability to stand up like Moroni. All we’re left with now is the ability to stand up and use the majority to obtain our moral objective through force! When we have an inner-moral compass, we’re capable of acting individually within society to promote the best interests of those in need. Yet, when we are incapable of standing up like our exemplars in the Book of Mormon, what is left us? Elder Christofferson perhaps said it best in October General Conference this year, “We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.” Sobering words, and certainly not words I want eternally associated to my spirit — to have been one who openly wanted the ‘yoke of Caesar’ to supposedly obtain the purposes of God. This is certainly deceit in its most subtle form — to use Lucifer’s tactics to achieve the Lord’s purpose. Ironic, isn’t it?

So, what of government? For any person who has taken the time to actually read the Constitutional Convention Notes (or even an abridgment of the notes), they would readily see the lengths the founders went to ensure the individual from ever finding a relationship with the federal government; after all, the original Constitution only allows for ‘the people’ to vote for their Congressmen — the Senate, the President, and the Supreme Court were all elected outside the direct scope of the people. The federal government was never intended to coerce and be in relationship with the individual, but to deal with the states directly — this fact is beyond contest. A Constitution, per our founder’s understanding, was not a limit upon the people, but was the people putting a limit on the government. The Constitution granted no rights whatsoever, but was a declaration of completely free and individually sovereign people telling their government exactly what it could (and implicitly could not) do. I say ‘implicitly’ because of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The government can grant absolutely NO rights whatsoever, because it is an entity and fabrication of the people — government can have absolutely no power greater than its creator, the people. Our Declaration of Independence openly states that our rights are derived from our Creator. Among all the rights granted by our Creator are the three which government action is to be limited to: life, liberty, and property.

The stated purpose of government — as per scripture, prophetic utterance, and our own American founders — is to establish the greatest amount of justice possible within society. In the course of establishing justice within society, there are some issues wherein government cannot rule without imposing inequality and social INjustice. Health-care is one of these. By securing the ‘needs’ of the few, the rights of the many are infringed — this necessarily creates injustice. Even Dr. Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln observed that you cannot destroy the freedom of one without destroying the freedom of all. Even Aristotle’s theory of social justice observes the obvious problem when the wealthy’s property is attacked by claims from the poor man’s rights, and that the poor man’s rights are attacked by the wealthy’s interest in their own property. There is a solution, but forcing ‘equality’ within society is not just.

Our government was not meant to “force” anyone. The only time ‘force’ was ever applied was when an individual actively and directly violated the life, liberty, or property of another individual. Coercion is therefore used to incarcerate the individual who actively, intentionally, and directly infringed on his neighbor’s life, liberty, and property.

I am truly sorry for one’s tragic surgery that cost $50,000 that ruined the family’s credit and made them lose their house for that one month they did not have health insurance. I too have been in that situation, when my son was born 6 weeks premature and our hospital bills amounted to over $250,000. I am still paying bills on this debt, but this debt is MINE — not yours. I have never taken a government penny for any of my three children (or anything else for that matter — and, yes, I mean ANYTHING else), and as a token to my Creator that I would never make “the people” pay for my children I named my first daughter ‘Liberty’ — I will not allow her birth or her life to financially enslave the workmanship of another man’s hands or property, regardless of what is socially accepted and regularly taken from mine.

One may use his or her agency to financially enslave the populace to be compelled to pay for their point of view, but that particular view is spoken of in scripture. Remember that in a representative government, the principle of government may be broken down into the relationship of a man/woman and their neighbor. Do I individually have the power to make my neighbor pay for my health care, even when I am sick and afflicted? If I were to come to their home at gun-point and extort money from them under threat of incarceration if they did not pay, I would be instantly thrown in jail — regardless of my condition. However, somehow, magically, when I send my representative (government) to do this job for me, it is suddenly okay? Remember the words of our founders, our prophets, and our Constitution, that the government can only act specifically in the powers the people delegate to it — and the people, being given all their rights from their Creator, cannot fabricate rights ex nihilo to delegate to government something that they do not have. Before we believe we can delegate all aspects of our life to government to legislate in our behalf, we must remember that government can only justly rule in matters of life, liberty, and property when we are directly and intentionally targeted and infringed upon. The founders called government action outside these bounds “tyranny” and “usurpation” — yet, today, we call this “the living document” theory.

Sure, the Constitution is a ‘living document’. It was designed this way to constantly move and counteract dangerous trends in society that sought to destroy freedom and liberty. As society grew, and the following generations lost sight of their forefather’s sacrifice for the principle of liberty and freedom, we are given the ability of securing our freedom and liberty against encroachments by unprincipled, dishonest, or merely misguided individuals. In fact, as I addressed at the beginning of this post, our own scripture states that a ‘law’ is only a ‘constitutional law of the land’ when it supports ‘that principle of freedom’ (D&C 98:5). The principle of freedom cannot be justly or legitimately legislated away — it being a gift of the Creator. There are those who state that the health-care bill will necessarily violate freedom, but that this is necessary to take care of those in need. Certainly, government will pass positive (human) law that will violate the ‘principle of freedom’ — we have seen this in our own Church history. Of these laws that violate the principle of freedom we are told that “as pertaining to the law of man, whatsoever is more or less than [the constitutional law of the land that supports the principle of freedom] is evil… And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good” (D&C 98:5,11). Does this mean anarchy? No. This means that we are only to support those measures that — in relationship to government — first maintain the principle of freedom before any other principle; otherwise, whatsoever is more or less than this is evil.

People have the ability of using their free-agency to murder, rape, plunder, steal, and do horrible things, but Democrats and Republicans alike should take note that a majority’s acceptance of these atrocities does not make it right. It simply means that the punishment for these crimes will be saved for a heavenly court, not a corrupt earthly one. When my very life is made illegal unless I come into compliance with a ‘law of man’ like it will if the ‘mandatory health-insurance’ measure is passed (and it IS a ‘law of man’ because the ‘principle of freedom’ is violated), then I openly argue that this bill murders freedom, rapes the soul, plunders the property of the individual, and steals the livelihood of hard-working Americans.

In the meantime, however, I will continue to support and donate to the many private organizations that provide free medical care to as many as cannot pay or do not have insurance, such as the LDS Primary Children’s Hospital, the Shriner’s Hospitals, and to the St. Jude Hospital and Cancer Research Center (located in my hometown of Memphis, TN). I believe in the goodness of people — I have seen it consistently in my lifetime. I know the hardships of watching a personal family member who suffers from mental disorders become homeless and a transient. Yet I see the blessings of private organizations — especially those of the Church — who have taken over in areas where government constantly and completely fails (and will inherently continue to fail, because it is inherently incapable for government to act in certain matters). I have seen the active hands of those members of the Church who drove hundreds of miles and dedicated thousands of hours to rebuild the homes after Katrina. We yell about the delayed help given to Katrina victims, but we fail to see that this is an inherent problem within government bureaucracy — problems that do not exist in private help. The Church was on the ground providing water days before FEMA organized — furthermore, private corporations like Wal-Mart and Home Depot had trucks and supplies loaded up and headed into the area long before the government got its act together. This is not an isolated incident. this is the rule. Government is best when it is restricted to the limited duty of ruling in matters of the direct violation of life, liberty, and property — it is wholly inadequate for any other and necessarily creates social injustice.

Hopefully, before we use the fallacy of emotion to promote the unjust and coercive hand of government in matters it was never intended to, we will evaluate and practice our own theocratic teachings that show us how to deal with social inequality and social injustice: preaching the gospel of Christ has more of an effect on the hearts and actions of man to do good than any other means — even the sword of coercion. Man is good and will provide for his neighbor; only the adversary’s plan argued otherwise in justifying coercion to provide for moral action. Government ultimately digresses into tyranny and coercion to obtain its objectives, but this was not how our Constitution was intended. Indeed, John Adams was right, our Constitution was made for a religious and a moral people, and it is unsuitable for any other. Why? Because it takes a religious and a moral people to act individually for the betterment of society, and once government is used to obtain, coerce, and force the moral duty of the individual — social injustice reigns supreme.


Gabrielle Valentine said...

S Logan,
While you have a great, noble story and I thank you for making a martyr of yourself for purposes of proving me wrong I STILL see some major issues which need addressed before I can trust you and the rest of conservatives to make the right choices for me and my family. I very well may BE wrong. However, I'd like to challenge you to live your principles to a tee, then.
Please don't ever utilize an emergency service again. It infringes upon my rights and I don't want to be taxed so you or your family can be rescued via fire department, police department or ambulatory services. Actually, let's just take those out of the picture altogether. Because I don't want MY money going to pay the salaries of these men and women who fight to save our lives ANYMORE because it infringes upon my liberty - it's "stealing" from me. It's enslaving me and my family.
In fact, immediately stop all programs that tax ANYONE. Because they ALL infringe upon my rights. I just want to be left alone, here in my home, and have NO ONE ask me for money. I want to give money when I want to give it, dammit. So we also now need to all cancel programs which guarantee such things we take for granted like: environmental protection programs (clean water, sewer), public education, the entire NASA space program and even much of our military because, really, we can agree that MANY if not all of these programs are not "rights" we are entitled to.

In fact, why not just cancel our government altogether? That is what you propose by being SO FIRMLY AGAINST ANY NEW LAWS THAT MIGHT TAX YOU.
You say a "socialist" style health program would enslave you and hurt you but offer no other choice but charity. Pray tell, how this would ever be enforced or begun? The world is not LDS, so you will have a hard sell immediately against atheists and the like.
And that Aryan Nations compound down the street? And all those marches they do? Forget about the States or National Guard getting involved now. Because it infringes upon their rights and liberties to have to pay the taxes to support the police officers who arrest them and tell them to shut up.
And you know? Forget about ANYTHING being fair ever again. ANY career field with a license will now thrive on bribery and criminalization (insert Mafia here) because, really, we agree that the government should just stay out of it. Correct? So those doctors who saved your daughter's life? And who gave me my gallbladder surgery (even without insurance in the ER because there was a 90 day waiting period before my new policy started) would not have to do so any longer.
In fact, anyone with a job can now forget about fair wages because, really, the government just shouldn't be involved and now employers get to pay what they want (I'm talking PENNIES now, not dollars).
At around the age of 50 be prepared to have both your parents and your in-laws move in with you because they don't have good health due to lack of access to health care AND they get no social security benefits now - that program was cancelled long ago. Your kids just moved out but you'll be changing diapers for the next 20 years until it's your turn to move in with your children.

Gabrielle Valentine said...

The list goes on and on. Forget about your children getting an education because there are no schools. Also? Without government involvement it is no longer "illegal" to discriminate. In fact, now, anyone can discriminate against anyone.
And, essentially, what this all means, is that people with money will thrive and get things THEIR way, and people without money will be poor and beg for help. Much like today. Only now, because people get even less of a fair wage or none at all (because, oops, somewhere along the way people started keeping slaves again because there was no government to intervene) everyone is far MORE protective of their money and there are no rules that we need to pay tithing because the prophet & apostles agreed via revelation that there is no way to ask such a poor people to pay tithing anymore. So now there are NO charity programs. Now it's about survival and staying safe against gangs, crime and war. Forget about your rights - you now have none (legally, that is, because no one is willing to protect you in ANY way; if far from perfect) Even though many people believe in God, they have no means to give to charity because there is no money to build and keep up non-profits now.
Ironically, you know what this sounds like? A SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST NATION.

Gabrielle Valentine said...

So before speaking about taking the government out of ANYTHING, please, REALLY think about what that means using complete, non-hypocrisy. Yes, the government needs some seriously fixing but you cannot say FOR AN ABSOLUTE that there should be NO welfare programs or health care programs and then take ALL THE OTHER THINGS THE GOVERNMENT DOES FOR GRANTED. Because I'll bet, in those situations, you'd really like some government involvement.
I mentioned several times in my blog that I DID NOT WISH TO RETURN TO A SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST USSR STYLE GOVERNMENT. I was speaking in simple terms of socialist principles in regards to health care. However, people ONLY saw one word (my very point) and "freaked out". More than 1/2 of my comments on my blog were long novels of scripture against socialism. See, that's THE ONLY WORD YOU SEE. You see a word and "freak out" instead of seeing the very larger picture.
My other larger point is this: I was then put down and judged (by fellow Temple Recommended Mormons, by the way) for saying that one word. I've been called pro-slavery, told I would be damned, crazy, stupid, and the list goes on. How soon you judge and then speak so righteously of liberties and freedoms without putting your money where your mouth is. I dare you to stop taking advantage of ANYTHING the government provides again and that mean school, utilizing anyone with a career that is licensed and never rely on police, firemen or 911 again. If you do this, I might back down a bit. But until you and the rest of conservatives do this, I will not back down on my points. And further - if I didn't have such a strong testimony - this sort of hypocrisy would cause me to leave the church. As it did with this woman (and I receive several of these types of e mails each month):
I was pleasantly suprised to run across this blog. I just wanted you to know that it gives me hope to know that there are Mormon’s in Utah that actually think things through and not blindly follow LDS Republican rhetoric.
My family is Mormon, so was I when I was younger, but as I grew up and developed my own beliefs (socialized health care, gay rights, freedom…) I found that more and more they conflicted with what was being taught to me at church and left. That was 20 years ago. I lived in Salt Lake for over 10 years and finally had to move out to get away from the blind hatred towards anything and everything that was different.
I have to admit that I have developed some prejudice feelings towards the LDS church and the people that follow its teachings because of my experiences with its culture and even my own family and friends.
It gives me hope to see that there are LDS people who can still hold on to their faith while doing what’s right for a country. I wanted to belive it was out there, but it seemed everyone I met was a zealot republican, and when you meet enough of them you start to believe they’re all that way.
I just wanted you to know that your blog has restored my hope and I will towards overcoming my previous beliefs of the mormon people.
Thank you,

So if I AM STILL wrong, then HOW DO WE FIX IT? You cannot tell me we'll JUST do a charity program and send me a link that shows that a girl in India was saved and expect me (and millions) to say "sounds great! Let's do it!"
As I mentioned on my blog, many of you cannot EVEN ADMIT THERE IS A PROBLEM. So how can you chastise me for trying to find a solution when you can't even see the problem?

Nathan said...

We need to distinguish between being forced to help others and receiving the benefits of a public good. The fire department, National Guard, armed forces, everything you listed is a public good. As such, all of us are benefited from it. While your taxes my help to support my protection through the police, it also helps YOUR protection. You are directly receiving benefits from the taxes you pay, and so it is not forced charity. Because these are public goods taxes need to be enforced or else these good would not exist. Thus, they do not infright on your rights, but serve to protect them

The difference with health care and forced charity lies in that my taxes would not go to support my health care. I am not a direct beneficiary. Because of that, it is legislation that takes money from my pocket and puts it into the hands of others. That is why it is forced charity, and why it is wrong.

It is important to remember the context on which the government should be limited. No one really advocates a complete absence of government. We acknowledge that the government is a necessary institution to preserve our liberties, and requires that we do give up some of our freedom to have that protection. But at the point where the government extends beyond protect individual liberty into redistributing income and helping the poor it has become illegitimate. If that were not the case, why would Alma step down as the chief judge?

The reason why it is illegitimate for the government to do so is because it is our responsibility as individuals to help the poor. This is based on morality, but the government is an amoral institution, a tool of the people. Morality depends on volition. You cannot be forced to be moral. If it is forced, then it is not moral (Moroni 7). The way the government acts is through coercion. As such, it cannot act morally.

I appreciate your concern, but it is important to distinguish what exactly would fall under the realm of forced charity, and why forced charity is illegitimate.

Nathan said...

I acknoweledge there is a problem, but lawmakers are not looking to the source of the problem, which is why this legislation will only aggravate the problem. I wrote about why there are high health care costs and uninsured people on my blog:

and offered some real solutions. This legislation does nothing to actually address the problems though.

Brandon said...


This may have been addressed already, and if so, please forgive the repetition. One I issue I don't believe has been addressed with you, however, is in response to the need you see in reforming the health care system. I completely agree, however, the reforms that need to take place must address the actual causes for the ever increasing costs of health care products and services in this country. So I ask you, what are those causes? Why is health care so expensive? Quite simply, due to a long series of government interventions into the health care market. Let's start with the gov't granted monopoly held by the AMA on billing codes, to the state medical licensure boards that work in collusion with the AMA to artificially depress the supply of doctors, as well as dictate what constitutes the legal practice of medicine. Then there is the fact that health insurance isn't really insurance anymore, it's pre-paid health care (kind of like using your auto insurance to pay for an oil change). Also, the current system separates the consumer (the patient) from the provider (the doctor), and yet another layer is added when employers are given special tax incentives that individuals do NOT get in order to provide a health insurance plan to their employees. Let's see, what else? Oh yeah, Medicare and Medicaid, themselves hugely responsible for driving up costs via basic economic law of supply and demand, i.e. you increase the demand by making the products free (for some), you increase the price. Then there is the fact that state insurance regulations require that certain procedures/services be covered, whether the individual consumer wants it or not (think maternity coverage mandated in all plans, even those purchased by an elderly widower. Think I'm kidding? Look into it!) Those same state regulations prohibit consumers from purchasing insurance from out-of-state providers, something that anyone can do with any other type of insurance! We also need to break the monopolistic stranglehold of the large pharmaceutical companies, who lobby to prevent you and I from being able to buy cheap drugs from other countries, and the corrupt and inefficient FDA.

Bottom line: gov't interference into the health care market is what has made it cost so dang much, which as I pointed out, includes fascistic gov't/corporate collusion. Get rid of this accumulation of garbage, you solve the problem. Obamacare only ADDS to the problem.

I am using this argument from economics because it seems frankly obvious to me that the argument from morality is getting nowhere with you. I'm not sure this approach will be any more successful, but it was worth a try, eh?

Gabrielle Valentine said...

S Logan,
This is too important a concept for me to not share with you: Furthermore, Christ’s death itself was, in a sense, enslaving to Him via his death (did he not wish it to be taken away from Him? Yes – he prayed that the burden would be lifted from Him, nevertheless “Thy will be done”).
To fully accept Christ’s atonement, you MUST also accept that charity, which comes in MANY forms, (even perhaps via government welfare programs) is necessary in some ways if we are ever to accept His atonement. Even those programs which MIGHT PERHAPS “enslave” others might be necessary to lift the burdens of others (something ALL our Prophets have spoken of as being correct principles). Our very Christ was “enslaved” via DYING for us to forgive our sins. And yet, you accept Him as your Savior, correct? Have we not enslaved, no… KILLED our very Christ in return for the forgiveness of our sins?
How quickly you decry accepting help and in doing so put down those who do it as wrong and lesser than thou, and then say you are a Christian who is rightful in accepting Christ’s atonement.
Some logical thoughts for you to ponder.

Nathan said...

You really are misunderstanding the argument. Although Christ had said that if there were another way He would prefer that, He still CHOSE to go through with it. It was completely VOLUNTARY! We are encouraging voluntary acts of charity. If Christ had no choice in the matter then it would be a different story. I doubt that Heavenly Father would have FORCED the Savior to perform the Atonement. That would undermine the very agency that the Atonement was established to protect. To coerce Jesus into dying would be a great act of hypocrisy. Your example can be extended to support our claim that forced charity is not justified.

But, Jesus volunteered from the beginning. He was not enslaved in any way, for the choice was His completely to the end. He CHOSE to fulfill His role.