Question(s) for Christians

[Micky J. Jagger]

link?

Huh?

 

[lvbuckeye]

So your position is that taxation equates to the government "stealing?"

tax is theft.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I'm curious as to your response regarding the quote about giving unto Caesar what is rightly his, which is referenced above. Do you view that passage as anything other than an endorsement of the State's legitimate power to tax and spend?

how does "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" endorse paying taxes? (and you have to remember they were trying to trick Christ up, and were looking for an excuse to have him arrested)

first off, we have fiat currency. it's NOT United States currency, it's Federal Reserve Bank notes. so the money isn't even Caesar's in this case.

 

[MaxBuck]

tax is theft.

how does "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" endorse paying taxes? (and you have to remember they were trying to trick Christ up, and were looking for an excuse to have him arrested)

first off, we have fiat currency. it's NOT United States currency, it's Federal Reserve Bank notes. so the money isn't even Caesar's in this case.

The Church has a name for this point of view - heresy.

Just a reminder, lv, we don't have a Caesar either. That doesn't make the nonpayment of taxes consistent with Biblical teaching.

 

[jwinslow]

What are we supposed to give to Caesar then, lv?

The Church has a name for this point of view - heresy.

And we've almost come full circle :p

 

[sepia5]

tax is theft.

Got it. Thanks.

 

[lvbuckeye]

The Church has a name for this point of view - heresy.

i'm not afraid of that word one little bit. i don't follow any church, i follow the Word of God.

Just a reminder, lv, we don't have a Caesar either. That doesn't make the nonpayment of taxes consistent with Biblical teaching.

What are we supposed to give to Caesar then, lv?And we've almost come full circle :p

that which is Caesar's. in terms of paying for roads, fire departments, etc. i actually think we SHOULD. but in terms of financing illegal wars that kill millions in order to line the coffers of the elite, no, absolutely not. no way. no how. you're just as guilty as the one's pulling the strings because you're going along with it.

remember that Christ didn't say that they should pay taxes, because that would have had Him in front of the Sanhedrin, but he ALSO didn't say to NOT pay taxes, because that would have had Him in front of Herod.

He beat them at their own game.

 

[jwinslow]

that which is Caesar's. in terms of paying for roads, fire departments, etc. i actually think we SHOULD. but in terms of financing illegal wars that kill millions in order to line the coffers of the elite, no, absolutely not. no way. no how. you're just as guilty as the one's pulling the strings because you're going along with it.

He didn't say give to Caesar for government jobs you like.

There are folks who think paved roads are an abomination against God's creation. You give to caesar what is caesar's, which is what taxes require of us as americans. You can choose to not give to caesar if it violates your walk with Christ, but you will have to suffer the consequences.

There's no way to support the good without the bad, that will always be true with politics.

 

[lvbuckeye]

i realise this. and it's not like i DON'T pay my taxes. Uncle Sam has been kind enough to take them out of my paycheck for me. it's merely a philosophical stance i was taking.

 

[Taosman]

Any discussion of the interpretation of the "give unto Caesar" passage just muddies the waters of the roll of taxes in a democracy.
My view on the payment of taxes is it's a quality of life issue. Not only for how I benefit, but for those who need help.

 

[MaxBuck]

i don't follow any church, i follow my own interpretation of the Word of God.

FIFY

Not a criticism; you have the same right to interpret scripture as anyone else.

 

[buckeyegrad]

that which is Caesar's. in terms of paying for roads, fire departments, etc. i actually think we SHOULD. but in terms of financing illegal wars that kill millions in order to line the coffers of the elite, no, absolutely not. no way. no how. you're just as guilty as the one's pulling the strings because you're going along with it.

remember that Christ didn't say that they should pay taxes, because that would have had Him in front of the Sanhedrin, but he ALSO didn't say to NOT pay taxes, because that would have had Him in front of Herod.

He beat them at their own game.

LV,

Just out of curiosity, two questions:

1) Why do you think Jesus saying one should pay taxes to the Romans would get him in trouble with the Sanhedrin?

2) Considering that whatever disagreements one might have with the US government's use of our taxes, it is at the very least no worse than what the Romans were doing with the taxes they collected, so why do you draw a distinction between good and bad uses of the $$? And do you think Jesus was making such a distinction?

 

[Jake]

i don't follow any church, i follow the Word of God.

Really?

Exodus, Chapter 21 is rather interesting.

"When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property."

So how many slaves do you own?

Let's look at Leviticus, Chapter 20,

"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death."

Looks like you're going to have to execute a lot of people.

Hmmm...how about first Timothy:

"Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."

Good luck with one.

 

[jwinslow]

Looks like you're going to have to execute a lot of people.

Looks like you've mastered the art of only caring about the parts (in this case passages) which protect your incomplete scope and demeaning ridicule.

 

[Gatorubet]

Looks like you've mastered the art of only caring about the parts (in this case passages) which protect your incomplete scope and demeaning ridicule.

Here, you point out the problem with Christianity - or more specifically - the problem with the fact that Christians (the followers of any religion to be sure) have themselves picked and chosen the parts they want to follow and ignored (or justified ignoring) the parts they want to ignore.

Which is one reason why Christians have a cow about homosexuality - a topic not high among the priorities of Christ's teachings (if "not mentioned at all" is a low priority) - and yet churches across the world and America are filled with divorced and remarried couples, a topic that Christ waxed repeatedly on with great disfavor.

But you do not see Christians assailing their elected leaders with demands to ban divorce and make anything besides Biblical adultery a cause for denying marriage (let alone a person's fourth of fifth marriage), yet they go apoplectic when two gays try to marry for the first time. Might as well pass gluttony laws that disallow fat people to wed, as God dislikes gluttony too.

As I like to say, God told us what sins were, but he forgot to include the points system.

Now, going from sins to wider issues, we are still free to pick and choose. 'On this rock I build....blah blah" Biblical foundation for the Catholic Church hierarchy and Papal infallibility? Is Leviticus 17:10 a justification for Jehovah's Witnesses not allowing blood transfusions for sick children or plain fruit-cakeness? Hell, election and predestination verses will get Presbyterians and Baptists into a theological (and occasionally real) fist fight, no matter what version of the Bible they both agree on.

So I have no dog in this hunt, but only wanted to say that "only caring about the parts (in this case passages) which protect your incomplete scope" has a long and proud heritage within the Christian Church.

Placing that behavioral label on non-believers - without acknowledging its existence among believers - will not get you far in any discussion.