A flat tax in the works for the US?

[David Floyd]

Shi,

This isn't an issue about coercion, this is an issue about the state not forcibly taking too much from those who can least afford to pay it.

Actually, I'd like to see you justify where the NT supports the existence of ANY tax. The only passage you can use is "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's", but that was an example of Jesus sidestepping a political issue.

In any case, the Bible, and Christianity, is not about how much each segment of the population is taxed, and that's my whole point. The bottom line of Christianity is salvation through grace. God is concerned about the condition of our souls, not our bank accounts. While you may think it's unfair to have a flat tax, that isn't a Christian or non-Christian issue, and Jesus never intended Christianity (to say nothing of himself) being used to push a particular political viewpoint.

[David Floyd]

There you go DF. Put that in your signature and smoke it.

Actually I like my signature the way it is. It's funny as hell, and a good reminder not to bother debating with you.

[Kidlicious]

I don't get it.

[Moral Hazard]

a welfare state with coerced giving. The Bible actually implies the opposite.

Where?

Old Testament Judaic Law does not apply to modern Christians, and in fact, did not apply after Christ. OT Judaic Law was just that - law given by God, for a theocracy headed by God. For most of the history of "Israel" (we'll call it that for simplicity's sake), there wasn't even a king, just God.

So, OT passages that instruct us to stone those who disobey their parents, for example, are irrelevant in terms of application for modern Christians.

What's this based on? I personally agree that they were laws for Israel. They were not laws forever. But is there anything explicit to support this. I'm curious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is one example Floyd, Jesus said that a rich man would be able to get into heaven as a camel would be able to get through the eye of a needle (not exact, but almost). Do you believe that no rich people will go to heaven? Do you think you have to live a life of poverty to be saved? If not, then why don't you believe in the words of Jesus, if you are a literalist?

And if you don't believe that why not?

And besides Jesus said nothing about a state at all. Does that mean that states should not exist? Did he say you should have a state? If you are a literalist and he doesn't address something, does that mean you shouldn't do it?

[Kidlicious]

Alan Keyes supports a sales tax. That's just as bad and stupid I think. I think he knows about the Bible.

[Moral Hazard]

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"

I take that as it's our duty to obey the laws and taxes of our country. As well as the Divine laws of God.

[David Floyd]

Where?

The concept of free will. God doesn't require man to be "good".

But my main point is that the Bible is non-political. Trying to inject a political viewpoint into Biblical teachings is just silly.

But is there anything explicit to support this. I'm curious.

The fact that Jesus gave these laws directly to the Israelites, for application within the 12 Tribes of Israel supports this viewpoint, right off the top of my head.

One can also use the passage that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, in this case by offering a blood sacrifice, making it unnecessary for us to do so.

I'm not an expert by any means, though, and I'm sure someone like BK can explain it more thoroughly than I can.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jesus never intended Christianity (to say nothing of himself) being used to push a particular political viewpoint.

Christianity is a political viewpoint in itself. Any ideology is.

Or are you asserting you can seperate your political life from your religious life? Because if you are... you can't.

Unless you want to be an Anabaptist and retreat from the world entirely. But your organization itself is a political unit. Oh no... what to do

[Agathon]

All I want to do is settle down with some Russian bootie and hit it for the rest of my life.

The orgasm is the supreme expression of revolutionary consciousness, why do you think conservatives hate sex?

Floyd: it seems really ****ed up to me to claim that Jesus, a man who cared for the poor and the unfortunate and thought it was virtuous to do so, would agree with your economic psychopathy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"

I take that as it's are duty to obey the laws and taxes of our country. As well as the Divine laws of God.

That's exactly what that means. Oh wait, libertarians understand things a little different. Throw common understanding out the window or don't bother debating with them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Alan Keyes supports a sales tax. That's just as bad and stupid I think. I think he knows about the Bible.

Hell, I'm sure the Pope knows about the Bible and he advocates welfare.

[David Floyd]

Here is one example Floyd, Jesus said that a rich man would be able to get into heaven as a camel would be able to get through the eye of a needle (not exact, but almost). Do you believe that no rich people will go to heaven? Do you think you have to live a life of poverty to be saved? If not, then why don't you believe in the words of Jesus, if you are a literalist?

Jesus was telling a parable. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. Sorta like when he said that Jesus would come back "like a thief in the night". The 2nd Coming won't involve a burgler-like Jesus sneaking in an open window. It's the message that is important.

And by the way, it's time for another Biblical history lesson for you, Imran (guess you shoulda gone to Sunday School). The "eye of the needle" did not refer to an actual needle, it referred to a gate into the city of Jerusalem that was very difficult for camels to enter, yet it could be done. The implication was that it was tougher for the rich to place their trust in God rather than in themselves, which is the requirement for salvation.

And besides Jesus said nothing about a state at all. Does that mean that states should not exist? Did he say you should have a state? If you are a literalist and he doesn't address something, does that mean you shouldn't do it?

No, it means you shouldn't try to inject a political viewpoint into Jesus' message. There was none, and any person with any political viewpoint can make a circumstantial claim that Jesus' teachings support their particular viewpoint, when in fact Jesus was apolitical.

MH,

I take that as it's are duty to obey the laws and taxes of our country. As well as the Divine laws of God.

True, but even that isn't absolute. There is no requirement for a Christian to obey an immoral law. For example, a Christian harboring fugitive slaves during the 1840s would be acting contrary to the law, but in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and he would not have sinned by doing so.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But my main point is that the Bible is non-political. Trying to inject a political viewpoint into Biblical teachings is just silly.

Translation. Everything I agree with is non-political. Everything I don't believe in is political. But that's not a political statement. Only a politician or a communist would say that it is.

[David Floyd]

Christianity is a political viewpoint in itself. Any ideology is.

No, Christianity isn't a political viewpoint. Over the years, in many ways it has become one, but you can't say that the original teachings of Jesus, as laid out in the Gospel, had anything to do with politics. Jesus's ONLY purpose on Earth was to die and be resurrected, and provide an outlet for salvation.

Or are you asserting you can seperate your political life from your religious life?

Actually, I could assert that it is morally right to help others and morally wrong to force you to help others.

Agathon,

Floyd: it seems really ****ed up to me to claim that Jesus, a man who cared for the poor and the unfortunate and thought it was virtuous to do so, would agree with your economic psychopathy.

I don't claim any such thing. I just claim that he wouldn't agree with yours, or anyone's. Jesus was not interested in politics, and he certainly wasn't interested in who had more money.

Kid,

Throw common understanding out the window or don't bother debating with them.

Refer to the quote in my sig