Christianity supports the health care bill

Thanks for the previous round. I will now support my arguments with sources. I will take up the suggestion of my opponent and support the position with the Bible. For Christians the Bible is the sole source of authority. Thus it is the ultimate authority regardless of denomination. I will first refute my opponents arguments then I will further support mine. 1. You cited a wikipedia article that speaks about both Calvinism and Arminianism. One would say Calvinism, a Christian point of view, does not support free will. Then Arminianism would say that one has free will. (I am using free will here very loosely which we can debate if we want to get into the arguments of Arminianism vs. Calvinism which is debate without adequate conclusion as scholars still debate it today. So the article you cited state a Christian point of view that both supports free will and is against it. The article is useless to support your claim that Christian's have free will and are not under political coercion. However, political coercion is not what is being debated. In fact, I agree that Jesus was not into political coercion. This does not mean that he wouldn't be in support of the bill. I say this to just show that both your sources don't support your arguments nor are they relevant. If they are, perhaps you can show me the line, paragraph that does support your argument. Also not debated is whether one has free will. Your argument is pointless… perhaps you can shed some clarity for me. 2. Second, I have to refute the statement that, "The bill does not help the poor at all." I particularly want to focus on "at all." It may be true that the bill does not help all poor, but my opponent seems to say the bill does not help any poor. First, this statement cannot be verified because the bill has yet become an active law. No one has used it yet so we can't know for sure. It is therefore an opinion and not fact. However, the plan is designed to help the poor. Using my opponents same source I found a link to a related article in the same publication that says the government would supplement and help those under the U.S. Poverty line (1). Is poverty equal to poor, I guess my opponent can debate this but then it gets to a matter of semantics. Let us agree, poverty is poor. The fact that my opponent said it wouldn't help the poor at all is just false. Also the article says nowhere that "The bill does not help the poor at all." The fact I used his own source to find my source shows the weakness of my opponents sources. Secondly, we are not debating whether or not preexisting conditions are treated. Your conclusions are not supported by your cited source you used. Again if I am wrong then please indicate where your conclusions are supported by the source. Now to my arguments. 1. My premise does have to do with the poor. Jesus was all about the poor. In fact he stated that in order to follow him and be a Christian, ( a follower of Christ is a Christian) we must give all we have away or sell it and give it to the poor. In fact, Christ seems to say only after we give what we have are we to follow him. Mark 10:17-23, Luke 18:22 - More can be provide as necessary. Jesus obviously cared for the poor and this bill supports caring for the poor. Thus Jesus would be in support. In the same way, the health care bill does help the poor as stated by my source: http://www.merinews.com... This article directly refutes the argument my opponent makes that "The bill does not help the poor at all." Because the health care helps the poor, and Jesus cares for the poor, Jesus would support the Health Care Bill. 2. As to my second argument that, "Jesus would also support social programs as in the health care plan proposed by the government. – my opponent didn't attack accept to say that I did not have adequate sources. One source Acts 2:45. Source now provided. Since he provided no argument – argument should flow through… of course I don't care if you respond to this later. Where my opponent attacks lack of sources on my part, I have now provided them, and now show where my opponent's sources are very inadequate and attack them directly. I look forward to your rebuttal and perhaps some counter arguments. ________ (1) http://www.csmonitor.com...