 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Why would it be a silly strawman? |
a)I don't think you really believe it. b)The text of the Bible easily shows Jesus is not in favor of such coercion. Don't believe me? Show me ONE verse.
quote:
The Governor of Alabama says Christian principles compels him to raise taxes on the rich to help the poor. |
If he said that Christian principles compelled him to reinstitute slavery, would you still support him?
quote:
Most Churches today plead with the state to help the poor. |
Most Churches also plead for laws against homosexuality. Do you support that too?
quote:
How is there equal free will in order to adequately be judged by God? |
God doesn't care about economic equality. He's interested in the condition of your soul.
quote:
It seems to me when so many Christians around the world want the state to take care of the less fortunate, and the Church has been doing it for centuries, that is probably the better interpretation. |
Just because many Christians want the State to take care of the poor doesn't mean there is a Biblical requirement to pass such laws. I've never heard a Christian or a church in the United States or elsewhere make that claim. While they may say the government should use tax money for that purpose, that is a completely different argument.
You say that lowering taxes is unbiblical. Then you justify that by saying that many Christians support welfare programs. Not only are the two statements not really relevant to each other, but you are making an appeal to the masses, and not justifying your view based on the available evidence - the text of the Bible.
quote:
And if you consider yourself a Christian, you should probably follow that example. After all, centuries of Christianity have spoken. |
Yes, centuries of Christianity lead me to believe that I should also hate Jews, and that it is acceptable to forcibly convert others to my belief system.
Of course, centuries of Christianity are unimportant to what the Bible actually says.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Of course it did. The poor were treated much better by the Church than before. For the first time they weren't treated like vermin. |
Take a look at what Christians did to the poor with their mercenary armies during the 30 Years War. The Siege of Magdeburg alone should make you rethink that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
So what if I don't believe it? It is a valid complaint. You can either be a literalist or not.
quote:
Of course, centuries of Christianity are unimportant to what the Bible actually says. |
So a Christian must believe in slavery? Women being obedient to their husbands totally? Homosexuals are sinful and should be killed? After all, what the Bible says is so important, right?
And if you aren't a literalist, then what type of Christianity do you believe in? Well if you can't take your cues from Jesus, then who? The Church, well there is a start! It is the biggest institution in the religion. And if you take your cues from the RCC, then you probably should support welfare because they back it and have backed it. Perhaps we can make a case of Lutheranism and Calvinism, but that's probably as far as it can go as institutional evolutions.
Otherwise, what are you supporting? Some mixed form of the Bible and your own beliefs? Why even call yourself Christian? It doesn't apply. You don't believe in the Bible, at least not totally, and you don't believe in the historical successor to Jesus, the Catholic Church.
Call yourself non-aligned if you don't throw in your lot with any of them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
So what if I don't believe it? It is a valid complaint. You can either be a literalist or not. |
Sure you can be a literalist, and a literalist look at the Bible does not support a welfare state with coerced giving. The Bible actually implies the opposite.
quote:
So a Christian must believe in slavery? Women being obedient to their husbands totally? Homosexuals are sinful and should be killed? After all, what the Bible says is so important, right? |
Now your ignorance of Christianity is beginning to become even more obvious. 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.
So yes, what the Bible says is more important than what man says about the Bible - it's just important to know what part of the Bible or what aspect of Biblical law you're talking about.
quote:
Well if you can't take your cues from Jesus, then who? |
Why couldn't I take my cues from Jesus? And in any case, we're not even talking about my personal behavior or personal beliefs, we're talking about whether it is required by the Bible (New Testament) to have laws that transfer wealth from one segment of the population to another. It's very clear that the Bible does not require - or even SUPPORT - that.
quote:
The Church, well there is a start! It is the biggest institution in the religion. And if you take your cues from the RCC, then you probably should support welfare because they back it and have backed it. |
Why should I take my cues from an organization that actively supported things such as the Inquisition and large scale bloody religious warfare? I don't recall Jesus being in favor of either.
quote:
Perhaps we can make a case of Lutheranism and Calvinism, but that's probably as far as it can go as institutional evolutions. |
Maybe, but requiring one to buy into an established church in order to be a Christian distorts the Bible, which requires only that one have faith in God and ask for salvation.
quote:
Otherwise, what are you supporting? Some mixed form of the Bible and your own beliefs? |
I'm not even sure how this is relevant. You started off by implying that it is unchristian, and unbiblical, NOT to have laws requiring the transfer of wealth from one segment of society to another. Whether or not such a thing is desirable by a lot of people is irrelevant - all that matters is that none of Jesus' teachings support that viewpoint, and you haven't even begun to prove otherwise, other than pointing out what lots of people who have historically and in the present behave contrary to the teachings of Christ believe.
quote:
You don't believe in the Bible, at least not totally, and you don't believe in the historical successor to Jesus, the Catholic Church. |
First of all, I find it amusing that you are accusing me of not believing the Bible, when I'm the one telling you to look at what the Bible actually says about issues. Secondly, the RCC is not the historical successor to Jesus - Jesus is on a plane above the RCC, and any other established Church or person. Jesus had no successor, and needed none. If you want to say that the RCC became the established church, that's fine, but that didn't happen for quite a while, and remember, even the Bible didn't become "final" in terms of what was included until the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Shi,
quote:
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
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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,
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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,
quote:
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,
quote:
Throw common understanding out the window or don't bother debating with them. |
Refer to the quote in my sig 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-09-2004 09:10
|