Finally sick of this: Minimal-state Jesus

[Jehoshua]

@GW - But the Old Testament did. Sodom was scorched because of its collective failure to care for its needy.

thats the revisionist interpretation. Before social liberalism came around to warp interpretations, the places sexual perversity, namely its penchant for sodomy was unanimously considered the sin that incited the wrath of God.

Oh and on the main topic, render under caesars context (a question around taxes to the Emperor) tends to imply that radical libertarianism is not a central doctrine taught by Christ and recieved from the apostles. Indications from our resident evangelical ghost writer to the contrary could be put down to poor wordcrafting, or ignorance of scripture.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

@GW - But the Old Testament did. Sodom was scorched because of its collective failure to care for its needy.

Nah, it was destroyed because there weren't enough people who would let their virgin daughters get gang raped by an angry mob.

 

[warpus]

thats the revisionist interpretation. Before social liberalism came around to warp interpretations, the places sexual perversity, namely its penchant for sodomy was unanimously considered the sin that incited the wrath of God.

I'm curious: Why hasn't God cared about anal love since? I mean, he destroyed 2 towns because of it, but since then I haven't heard of any God-induced sodomy-related deaths.

Was it just an emotional fit of rage, has he moved on since, or what's the deal?

 

[El_Machinae]

King David collected taxes, and he was a man after God's own heart. If you hold to the idea that the Three Wise-men were kings, then they are positively portrayed when they gave tax-funded subsidies to a relatively poor mother.

Jehoshua, you should consider that thousands of years of homophobia has been what's caused revisionist history. The prophet Ezekial clarifies the sins of Sodom. They could've been fans of lobster dinners for all we know. What we do know is that their only sin worth clarifying was to ignore the poor.

Finally, the Israelites had to pay tithes which were used to make the temple more wealthy-in-appearance, so wasting people's seized money is also approved by God.

 

[kochman]

Can't I pay my taxes voluntarily? Happily, even?

Because I am actually happy to do so.

I think people aren't all as happy based on the waste they've seen or experienced while at the same time not getting much back (at least from their perspective)...

People are allowed to have a different opinion, without being berated or made to seem to be a villain of some sort...

 

[Borachio]

I must say I've always been a bit mystified by people being resentful of taxes.

In all the jobs that I've had, the tax has always been deducted at source, PAYE. So that when looking at how much money I have I've just looked at the net figure. The rest is of no interest to me. After all, the gross figure seems fairly arbitrary to me, so any deductions are arbitrary as well. Since it seems I have little control over the rate of pay, beyond finding another job, or being promoted - which would also pay an arbitrary (though maybe higher) figure.

Similarly, the VAT on goods is something I never consider. I just look at the price I have to pay in the shop, to decide whether I want to buy whatever or not.

Perhaps if I ran my own business and had to do tax returns, I might view things differently. But I doubt this. It would just be another bill. Like the gas bill. Or water rates. I don't really see the difference.

Still, maybe I'm just odd. I've certainly heard a lot of people moan on and on about the tax they pay. Yet they still must pay it. Perhaps they just like moaning.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't think Jesus would have been about forcible redistribution of wealth.

If you're rich, you're not going to heaven, and we're talking about a binary destination.

Do the math.

 

[JollyRoger]

thats the revisionist interpretation. Before social liberalism came around to warp interpretations, the places sexual perversity, namely its penchant for sodomy was unanimously considered the sin that incited the wrath of God.

Warp this:

Ezekial 16:49 - Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

 

[El_Machinae]

Compare that to Genesis: an anonymous account of an ancient oral tradition. Words of a prophet, or an old text? Your choice.

 

[JollyRoger]

Even the Genesis account gives support for a nonsexual interpretation.

 

[Leoreth]

I think people aren't all as happy based on the waste they've seen or experienced while at the same time not getting much back (at least from their perspective)...

People are allowed to have a different opinion, without being berated or made to seem to be a villain of some sort...

I agree in so far that it's more worthwhile to criticize the use of taxes instead of rejecting their collection outright. There's certainly a lot of waste going on, but ironically all the talk about the justifications of taxation itself only overshadows this problem.

 

[Borachio]

If you're rich, you're not going to heaven, and we're talking about a binary destination.

Do the math.

Aren't we all rich?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Aren't we all rich?

Some of us are

Spoiler :

Watch it. Stop posting now and go watch that. Not just you, but you to! You! In the green shirt. Go, watch! Now damnit!

 

[Leoreth]

I'm wearing a green shirt

Unfortunately UMG/GEMA don't allow me to watch the video, and I'm not in the mood to get me a proxy first.

 

[Borachio]

But it's 90 minutes long. What about my data allowance?

Where's the transcript for me to read?

Shorter (4:32):

This is a video which makes allows you [to] experience the life that a huge percentage of people have in africa, it contains quotes and pictures of the starvation in Ethiopia, Somalia and South Africa- it is not for the faint of heart

Spoiler :

Link to video.

Top three comments:

Spoiler :

so happy to be white, love me some bacon, and to be honest, dem n-word should find a job in africa or something, white people wont feed them forever.

I wouldn't give them the sh** i had this morning. F-word them. Send the army in there and wipe the filthy gargabe out. Seriously. All they do is screw and breed more babies and then expect the rest of the world to help them.

I read somewhere on a dating site that they have call centers in Africa which put up fake profiles and fake pictures of beautiful women on dating sites. Then they ask you to send them money to get the woman out of her country to come meet you. F the filthy trash. Let the garbage starve to death. It's their own f ing faults for spending 99% of their time screwing & breeding when they can't feed themselves. I'm sick of seeing pictures of these starving little rakes. Wipe out the works of them

Climate change is already harming food production – crop yields in some African countries could be reduced by as much as 50% by 2020 as a result of climate change.

http://www.actionaid.org.uk/102138/hunger.html?&gclid=CP2d4Magz7MCFerItAod5wcAgQ

 

[GhostWriter16]

thats the revisionist interpretation. Before social liberalism came around to warp interpretations, the places sexual perversity, namely its penchant for sodomy was unanimously considered the sin that incited the wrath of God.

I think that Jolly might be right, but it wouldn't even matter if he was. Its not like that's the only place to condemn homosexuality from a moral perspective.

Now I, of course, do not believe that that means it should be illegal. I don't think Christians have a call to prosecute that in the New Testament either. But its still wrong, and Paul says as much in Romans 1.

They can have their revisionist interpretation for all I care, homosexuality is still a sin

Oh and on the main topic, render under caesars context (a question around taxes to the Emperor) tends to imply that radical libertarianism is not a central doctrine taught by Christ and recieved from the apostles.

I don't think politics is a doctrine, period. And I of course do not argue that radical libertarianism is some kind of doctrine clearly taught in the Bible, or that a Christian has to be a libertarian.

As for rendering unto caesar, all that it says, at best (I do intend to address Traitorfish's objection, which I think was in this thread but I don't remember) is that Christians should pay taxes, which could just as easily be out of a desire to keep the peace. I don't think the fact that Christians should pay taxes is an automatic heavenly endorsement of any tax the government may levy.

Indications from our resident evangelical ghost writer to the contrary could be put down to poor wordcrafting, or ignorance of scripture

I don't really think the Bible explicitly teaches libertarianism, or any other political ideology for that matter.

Warp this:

Ezekial 16:49 - Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Jesus this, Jesus that. Yeah, the apocalyptic preacher from 1st-century Judea would really care about modern economics debates.

Indeed he would not, I'm sure.

I don't think Jesus throwing money changers out of the temple had anything to do with wealth redistribution.

This as well.

If you don't help the poor you go to hell with Jesus. If you don't help the poor you go to prison with government. Clearly the threat from government is less.

Mankind is sinful and worthy of judgment from God. Government is not God, and is made up of the very same types of sinful people as everyone else.

@GW - But the Old Testament did. Sodom was scorched because of its collective failure to care for its needy.

I don't think it was a "Collective" failure. Any person there could have voluntarily given to the needy.

That aside, however, the reality is that that was God giving the judgment, not the government. God could decide to strike down every sexual deviant in the United States if he saw fit, but that doesn't mean its the government's job.

 

[Leoreth]

They can have their revisionist interpretation for all I care, homosexuality is still a sin

That sounds like you're happy about it.

 

[kochman]

I agree in so far that it's more worthwhile to criticize the use of taxes instead of rejecting their collection outright. There's certainly a lot of waste going on, but ironically all the talk about the justifications of taxation itself only overshadows this problem.

Yeah, people who call taxation theft, in the US at least, are blatantly ignoring the designs of the founding fathers when they called for our social contract, in which Congress would have the power to levy taxes in return for representation when it comes to how those taxes are spent...

It's amazing to see people think otherwise.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't think it was a "Collective" failure. Any person there could have voluntarily given to the needy.

That aside, however, the reality is that that was God giving the judgment, not the government. God could decide to strike down every sexual deviant in the United States if he saw fit, but that doesn't mean its the government's job.

You really need to brush up on the Old Testament, especially the prophets. It is clear that collective entities were judged by how they treat the needy. A good part of the law pased down was setting up a structure where those who owned property sacrificed and the beneficiaries of part of that sacrifice was the a class that did not own property. There were gleaning rights which are almost parallel to someone shopliftingbread today. There was much decrying about judges favoring the haves rather than the have nots.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That sounds like you're happy about it.

Not particularly. I'm not particularly unhappy about it either. I trust God when he makes the rules and I trust that he will judge everyone righteously and fairly. I have enough of my own sins to worry about that I don't feel the need to obsessively worry about other people's.

My point was just that I don't necessarily know which interpretation is right. I don't know the context of that Sodom quote in Ezekial so while it does seem like its talking about the same Sodom, I'm not certain of this. I'd have to compare the two and study it for a bit before coming to any kind of worthwhile conclusion.

But let's say Jolly is right. Let's say God's destruction of Sodom had nothing to do, in fact, with sodomy, and everything to do with their lack of charity (I honestly am inclined to think that "Everyone in the town" [I could believe that this doesn't refer to every last person in the town, but surely a majority] wanted to commit rape had to have some part in this as well), that doesn't mean that the Bible is alright with homosexuality. So to condemn it as "The revisionist interpretation" seems hardly necessary in this case because it doesn't really defend a liberal interpretation of the other parts of the Bible that say homosexuality is a sin.

Yeah, people who call taxation theft, in the US at least, are blatantly ignoring the designs of the founding fathers when they called for our social contract, in which Congress would have the power to levy taxes in return for representation when it comes to how those taxes are spent...

It's amazing to see people think otherwise.

Oh, taxation is constitutional surely. But I just can't think of a good moral defense of the practice.

Believe me, I'd actually like nothing more than to find one, so I can worry about taking the time to explain why things like defense, courts, exc. are a good thing for the state to be spending money on, and things like healthcare, bailouts, and drug wars are not. But I can't really rationally defend it anyway. Yes, its constitutional, but that doesn't make it moral. I don't really object to the practice entirely at this point, I'd be more than happy to get a strict constructionist government and I can live with the inconsistency, but its still inconsistent.