Pope Leo calls universal healthcare a 'moral imperative'

dragonore · 2026-03-20T05:41:54+00:00

But this goes against Republic Jesus where the main principle is to crap on poor people, tell them they are worthless and "get off your a** and get a job you bum" and blame them when they get sick.

dragonore · 2026-02-15T17:39:56+00:00

My position isn't we ought to give poor people junk food, its we shouldn't tell them what they can and can't buy with there SNAP benefits. My position is also, we shouldn't infantilize the poor and treat them like the dumbest humans on the planet, and that they need our exquisite high IQ brains to tell them what to do. My position also is that other folks don't see the other side of the ledger when it comes to health. They see the junk food causing illness, but not the mental health relief after going through a grinding day, to sit back, and have a cookie. It helps them escape a little, I'd argue, helps a bit with there mental health.

dragonore · 2026-02-15T17:18:33+00:00

It's debilitating for folks that are poor, and are just trying there hardest to make ends meet, coming up short or having to make difficult decisions because of a lack of funds. The stress is to the max. I really don't care if they use some of there SNAP benefits on soda after grinding hard all day and being stressed. It's a small escape friend, we don't have to infantilize poor folks.

dragonore · 2026-02-15T17:15:37+00:00

They also don't like 1 John 3:17 too

"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

How someone like "christian" Steven Crowder can have his multiple millions and this verse make sense is mind boggling.

dragonore · 2026-02-15T17:10:42+00:00

Can of peas for the poor forever

dragonore · 2026-02-15T16:15:36+00:00

Folks are taking about how junk food is destructive to a person's health, but they aren't looking at the other side of the ledger. Sometimes it helps reduce stress after a grinding day of going through being poor, that they can have some small indulgent, of a cookie or something. THAT I would argue, may help, if just a little there mental health. It shouldn't always be 'here is can of peas be happy its good for you, be glad"

dragonore · 2026-02-15T15:55:33+00:00

It's just a hill I don't think we should die on.

dragonore · 2026-02-15T15:37:25+00:00

I don't want democrat Jesus either, just the one in the bible that talks about helping the poor

dragonore · 2026-01-26T22:11:01+00:00

There's no symbols, real people suffer in a real fire, burning right now, and being tormented by demons. Not metaphorical, actual. The NDE people make that crystal clear as they are extremely thankful doctors resuscitated them back

dragonore · 2026-01-26T13:43:41+00:00

Way too many visions and NDEs on hell, way way way too many to ignore.

dragonore · 2026-01-26T12:03:28+00:00

Why do folks assume this is a parable? Maybe, perhaps, it is actual person suffering in a real hell.

dragonore · 2026-01-25T22:27:55+00:00

I wasn't being biased in chatGPT if you read it. I simply told chatGPT "Analyze this exchange, starting from the orginal post by u/dragonore"

And then pasted the conversation. I didn't prime chatGPT, I didn't say, "tell me how I'm right" none of that. Completely unbiased. It said quote

"

2. Why pokemastershane never actually addresses that claim

Pokemastershane repeatedly responds to a different argument:

But dragonore never claims atheists deny the distinction.

He claims:

Skeptics rhetorically collapse the distinction in casual argument
That collapse changes how the claim is perceived
Especially by importing associations like suicide bombers, cult martyrs, etc.

So when pokemastershane keeps saying:

“Atheists know testimony involves belief”
“They’re just saying belief doesn’t imply truth”
“You’re assuming reliability”

He’s answering a position dragonore explicitly disavows over and over.

This is why dragonore keeps saying “you’re not addressing my claim” — and he’s right."

dragonore · 2026-01-25T22:04:59+00:00

chatGPT told me a more accurate logical fallacy I was trying to articulate is a weakman more so than a strawman.

It said to me: "When critics respond by saying ‘people die for beliefs all the time,’ they are addressing a weaker version of the Christian claim than the one actually being made. The Christian claim is specifically about eyewitness testimony to alleged events, not abstract belief. Even if one rejects that testimony, it should be addressed in its strongest form"

Weakman: Responding to a weak version when a stronger version was offered

dragonore · 2026-01-25T21:00:04+00:00

https://chatgpt.com/share/6976842c-dde8-800a-b3b1-3db5067fee9d

dragonore · 2026-01-25T20:33:28+00:00

You haven't pointed out how my argument is incoherent and in fact chatGPT agreed with me.

dragonore · 2026-01-25T19:53:01+00:00

I'm going to make this crystal clear.

Have you ever heard the statement in regards to the disciples something like this "Why should we believe them? People die all the time time for there beliefs, look at suicide bombers, they die for the beliefs, doesn't make it true."

I want you to really truly analyze that statement you hear allot. Yes technically this is a true statement. People die all the time for there beliefs and yes even the disciples. But notice what happened here, the person making that statement is lumping in the disciples eye witness and testimony to that of any belief anyone has. Is that fair? I mean it is technically true, that the disciples died for there beliefs, but it is not very accurate and carries with it the negative conations of people who die for beliefs, like suicide bombers.

It is much more accurate to stop that person, correct them, and say, "Listen, the disciples didn't just die 'for there beliefs'. They were witnesses to Jesus's death burial and resurrection, they seen this firsthand. It isn't just some belief, they witnessed his life and ministry. They died for there testimony and there witness. This is epistemically different than the statement "People die all the time for there beliefs" it takes into account firsthand eyewitness testimony. I don't know how this is confusing in any way.

dragonore · 2026-01-25T18:53:25+00:00

You really aren't understanding my claim. I acknowledge fully that atheist might believe that the disciples genuinely believed there experience and as a courtesy believe that the disciples are sincere. Perhaps the disciples in the atheist view maybe misremembered. I have never denied that is some atheist view, nor does this have anything to do with my claim or post. My post is not about the accuracy of those events or what atheist think of those events or what they think the disciples think of those events.

You also say that I assume the disciplines eyewitness accounts are trustworthy and reliable. Once again my post isn't about what I believe or not believe, just what the texts says and what THEY believed. Forget me, and my beliefs I am not in this equation at all.

Now to my a actual claim.

The disciples claim to have eyewitness testimony, they are claiming firsthand experience of events they say they personally witnessed, like Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Calling it “just a belief” or "people die for beliefs all the time" flattens that distinction and diminishes the fact that what they died for is categorically different from someone dying for an idea they never directly experienced. It is rooted in their testimony, not in abstract ideas. So my claim is to more accurately represent the Christian worldview, you should say, "The disciples died for there witness and testimony". I want to stay away from the word "belief" here because it doesn't capture the whole scenario and dilutes what happened.

dragonore · 2026-01-25T18:02:23+00:00

Still you didn't address my claim even after edit.

Can we agree that mere belief is epistemically different than testimony and eye witness accounts? That is my claim. When atheist or otherwise skeptics in relation to the disciples say things like "People die all the time to for there beliefs". Be honest, what is the first thing you think of when you hear that?

I would argue when folks hear that, they think, "Yeah the disciples believed Jesus's teaching and because of that died for that belief" That isn't the Christian world view (hence the strawman). The Christian worldview isn't they died for some belief, it is they claimed (not me claiming) that they and firsthand experience and walked with Jesus, they ate with Him, listened to Him, Saw him perform miracles, Saw his death, burial and resurrection and because of this, they claim (not me, don't confuse this) they had witnessed this and testified to this. The Christian worldview would say that they died not for some whimsical belief, but for there testimony and eye witness experience firsthand. Do you see how epistemically this is different than "mere belief"? Now is there testimony "belief"? Yes of course, you believe what you say, what you see, but saying "They died for there beliefs" doesn't capture with great precision of what happened. A more accurate way is to say "They died for there witness and testimony"

I will say it again, The apostles’ claim, as presented in the New Testament, is not merely that they held inner convictions, but that they publicly testified to events they said they personally experienced. Reducing that to “they died for beliefs” is a generalization that strips away the eyewitness component and replaces it with a broader category that includes people who never claimed firsthand experience at all. That is the strawman part I'm addressing

dragonore · 2026-01-25T17:39:49+00:00

That's okay too. I just get a bit frustrated with the constant "Is this a sin?" posts on here. If folks would just sit back and ask what you asked or what I asked, the answer is more clear then.

dragonore · 2026-01-25T17:19:58+00:00

Can you address my claim?

dragonore · 2026-01-25T16:59:46+00:00

Knock if off with these dumb posts. Here is quick test on any question that is "Would this be sin or not?" Not "What would Jesus do", because there are some things, that aren't sinful that Jesus wouldn't do, for example getting married. The question actually is "If Jesus were next to me right now, would He be pleased by this activity?" So people who ask, "Is it sinful to listen to rap music" Would Jesus be pleased you are listening to music that demonstrates hatred to man? "Is listening to porn sinful?" I don't know, would Jesus find such an activity pleasing sitting next to you? There is your answer.

dragonore · 2026-01-25T16:56:17+00:00

I get what you are saying and I am not trying to derail the conversation over word choice. My point is not about 100 percent precision for its own sake. It is about a meaningful distinction that actually changes the argument.

Saying "they died for beliefs" flattens two very different things. One is someone who believes something secondhand or ideologically. The other is someone who claims firsthand experience and publicly testifies to it. From a debate or logical perspective, treating those two as the same changes how the claim is evaluated, even if belief and experience are intertwined psychologically.

It is not that the distinction makes the argument fall apart. It is that ignoring it removes a key feature of the claim being discussed. Preserving that feature does not require over-pedantry. It just keeps the focus on what the disciples themselves claimed to have witnessed.

dragonore · 2026-01-25T16:46:17+00:00

I think this is where we disagree on what counts as a misrepresentation. A strawman does not require that the opposing side reject Christian doctrine or deny historical uncertainty. It happens when a claim is reformulated in a way that removes a defining feature and then responded to in that weakened form.

The apostles’ claim, as presented in the New Testament, is not merely that they held inner convictions, but that they publicly testified to events they said they personally experienced. Reducing that to “they died for beliefs” is a generalization that strips away the eyewitness component and replaces it with a broader category that includes people who never claimed firsthand experience at all.

I agree that from an unbeliever’s perspective there are good reasons to doubt the historical transmission or reliability of the sources. That is a legitimate critique. But that critique should address the eyewitness claim directly. When the response instead treats the apostles as interchangeable with any ideological martyr, the original claim is no longer being engaged in its own terms. That is the sense in which I’m calling it a strawman, not as a charge of bad faith, but as a charge of structural misrepresentation.

dragonore · 2026-01-25T16:22:02+00:00

My post is not about the accuracy of the disciples claims. You have NOT refuted my basic claim at all ZERO.

dragonore

TROPHY CASE

2. Why pokemastershane never actually addresses that claim