Supply Side Economics vs Christianity

[Ben Kenobi]

Giant Squid:

The quote makes more sense in context. This is how the NIV renders the passage.

Matthew 5:38-42

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'

But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ah. Well, in that case, you'll notice that the thread title says CHRISTIANITY. In a thread about Christianity, I'd say that the Bible is highly relevant.

So, Jesus of Nazareth was a communist.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Good question. The "Law" can mean different things depending on the context. Generally, it refers to the Mosaic law, 10 commandments. However, in Matthew 22, it seems to include the first part of the OT, the Pentateuch since the Jews called this portion the 'Law' since it summed up God's commands for good moral conduct.

But when Jesus issued 2 Commandments, he said the entire law of the prophets was based on these 2 commandments. That would certainly exclude much the OT, especially the punishments for violating the laws issued by earlier prophets. Can you see Jesus executing someone for working on the Sabbath? Yet Moses did just that! And then there's the adulteress he defended. I'm not sure if he would speak against working on the Sabbath, much less punishing violaters, but we know he said adultery was a sin even though we are not qualified to punish adulterers/sinners. His defense of the adulteress really throws a monkey wrench into the OT and those Christians who claim it as their authority to punish sinners.

He does not really get into that beyond my earlier post with the 'least stroke of the pen.'

Yes, but he wasn't saying the entire OT should be relevant to future Christians, just the law of the prophets and while we don't know exactly which laws he meant, we do have a context - the 2 commandments he gave. If a law of a prophet, or the ascribed punishment for violating said law, contradicts the 2 commandments, then we have a serious problem for Christians. Unfortunately, the majority of Christians will reach back to the OT and ignore Jesus when it comes to what the laws should be...

[Giant_Squid]

Yeah. I agree with the context. Certainly you would have to agree it suggests that, in the context we're debating, Jesus wouldn't have supported protesting against government tax policies, and that he might in fact have suggested we give to the government even more than the mandatory tax rate.
And Berserker, indeed I was wrong about the stealing, but I think that the implication here is that this is an unjust lawsuit, as even the Pharisees would obviously support it if it were just, and since he follows it with the quote about if you're forced to walk a mile (unjustly, it would seem), walk two.

[Berzerker]

Ben - I forgot, see where Jesus changed an OT law from a prophet - no less than Moses himself - wrt divorce? How does that effect his comment about fulfilling every detail of OT prophetic law?

[Ben Kenobi]

(my sig's temporarily gone, see the china thread.)

Yeah. I agree with the context. Certainly you would have to agree it suggests that, in the context we're debating, Jesus wouldn't have supported protesting against government tax policies, and that he might in fact have suggested we give to the government even more than the mandatory tax rate.

Giant Squid:

Not necessarily to the government, but definitely to the poor and needy, to give when asked. As for the tax rate, Jesus leaves that to the civil authorities to decide what should be a fair rate and asks Christians to respect that rate.

[Berzerker]

G Squid - there is no indication the suit is unjust, and "forced" or "compelled" to walk a mile doesn't necessarily mean threatened with violence. In fact, it wouldn't make much sense if someone physically compelled another to walk with them. Sounds more like he was saying if someone asks you to walk with them, and their reason was convincing - compelling - then walk even further with them. It would be like a starving person asking for an apple and being compelled by their situation to give him two apples instead.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

As for the tax rate, Jesus leaves that to the civil authorities to decide what should be a fair rate and asks Christians to respect that rate.

That's where I have a problem with interpreting what Jesus said about "render unto Caesar". Caesar was using that revenue to murder multitudes and enslave or oppress even more and I find it hard to believe Jesus would have told his followers to fund such evil. Maybe Jesus was just trying to reduce the potential for oppression of his followers, nevertheless, he didn't tell his followers to go out and create a government and "tax" other people to fulfill his wishes. On the contrary, when instructing his disciples, he told them to go to a town and preach the message. If the townspeople invited them in, give them the message, but if they rejected them, go on to the next town.

[notyoueither]

What a f*cked up thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

there is no indication the suit is unjust, and "forced" or "compelled" to walk a mile doesn't necessarily mean threatened with violence. In fact, it wouldn't make much sense if someone physically compelled another to walk with them.

You're missing a piece of the puzzle. Roman legions conscripted people to carry their load for them. They could not refuse, and many Jews in Judea complained about the demands of the legionnaires.

I'm not sure if he would speak against working on the Sabbath, much less punishing violaters, but we know he said adultery was a sin even though we are not qualified to punish adulterers/sinners.

Couple of points here. Jesus did speak out on the Sabbath, saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

Mark 5:23-28

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."


Note, that Jesus cited a precedent from the OT in order to prove his point. There are certain situations in which it is lawful to do work on the Sabbath, one of them being to alleviate hunger.

Secondly, while we are not qualified to judge unbelievers, we are qualified to tell people the word of God, and what counts as sin. All we can say is that, such and such is sin, all those who sin are in need of God's blessing and repentence.

Beyond that, we are to leave to God.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's where I have a problem with interpreting what Jesus said about "render unto Caesar". Caesar was using that revenue to murder multitudes and enslave or oppress even more and I find it hard to believe Jesus would have told his followers to fund such evil.

If we look at that section as a whole, we see that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. If Jesus said they were not obliged to pay taxes to Caesar, the Romans would construe that as a revolution, and slaughter all of the Jews.

Secondly, it would confirm that Jesus desired a political kingdom, the kind the people expected of their Messiah. Jesus' kingdom is not political, but spiritual. The only way to drive that point home is to make the point of rendering the civil authority, through taxes and the like back to Caesar.

Now, you are right that there were many atrocities going on in Caesar's time, or even today with public funding for abortions. Does this mean that Christians are compelled to fund abortions through their taxes. Yes. What it also means is that Christians are to change the laws so that brutal practices are not funded by taxes.

[Berzerker]

Ben - But Moses executed a man for collecting firewood on the Sabbath, I just can't see Jesus doing that. While I agree with your (Floyd's too) analysis wrt to a spiritual as opposed to political kingdom, I still have a problem:

Now, you are right that there were many atrocities going on in Caesar's time, or even today with public funding for abortions. Does this mean that Christians are compelled to fund abortions through their taxes. Yes. What it also means is that Christians are to change the laws so that brutal practices are not funded by taxes.

In those days Christians/Jews didn't get to vote on or abolish immoral laws and policies. And even if they did, if they didn't win then paying taxes would still be funding evil and the Bible condemns this, e.g., do not do business with sorcerers, witches, etc (I don't know the OT passage). This puts Christians in the position of financially supporting slavery and genocide or violating Jesus' teachings - there's something wrong with that interpretation even though it seems to be supported by the text.

[Ben Kenobi]

Even if they could not vote, they could try to win over the authorities, to show them a better way. Which is better, this approach or political revolution?

[Berzerker]

Civil disobedience? The early Christian martyrs were martyred because they refused to acknowledge the Roman gods. Most didn't even have to renounce their religion, just pay homage to the state religion... How do you explain that if Jesus wanted them to obey the state?