 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
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. |
1)Refer to my sig.
2)I'm a very political person. Jesus was not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
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. |
You didn't adress my point. My point was that positive action taken by the state that would place a severe burden on the poor was not justified from a Christian perspective. You just went on about biblical support for any tax in general. Your statement that Christianity is merely about salvation by grace is not correct, or else Jesus wasted his time by talking about works he wanted us to do, and I don't think supporting a tax that would place undue hardship on the poor is consistent with his principles. Rather, if we have a tax, the burden should be fairly distributed based on the hardship it causes, not based on raw percentages taken out.
As far as biblical support of taxation, from a Protestant perspective I am not sure how I would answer. From my Catholic perspective, there is more establishment in terms of traditional on the role of the state in society, a tradition that I don't believe my previously held libertarian beliefs were in line with.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Shi,
quote:
You didn't adress my point. My point was that positive action taken by the state that would place a severe burden on the poor was not justified from a Christian perspective. |
First of all, I'm not sure how it would place a severe burden on the poor. It would just take a burden off the rich and middle class. The poor might have to pay more money relative to their income, and thus be poorer, but if you and Imran are correct about the virtue of poverty, isn't that a good thing? 
quote:
Your statement that Christianity is merely about salvation by grace is not correct, or else Jesus wasted his time by talking about works he wanted us to do, |
Those works do not make us Christians. Only salvation by grace through faith does so. Once we become Christians, we naturally will want to do acts that are glorifying to God, and will want to give of ourselves to help others. But this doesn't mean that we are obligated to pass laws forcing both Christians and non-Christians to do so. Jesus' teachings about virtue and goodness and the like were all based on voluntary compliance - in that sense his teachings were very apolitical, in that they didn't support laws supporting one or the other.
quote:
and I don't think supporting a tax that would place undue hardship on the poor is consistent with his principles. |
The term "undue hardship" is subjective, and beyond that, the poor are supposed to receive assistance based on voluntary charity, not government-coerced donations, which is (along with the military) the majority of what taxes go to anyway.
I personally think a "welfare system" relying solely on private entities and voluntary donations would be perfectly in line with Christian principles, regardless of what "undue burden" you think that puts on the poor.
quote:
Rather, if we have a tax, the burden should be fairly distributed based on the hardship it causes, not based on raw percentages taken out. |
Funny, I never saw that in the Bible.
Imran,
quote:
Of course I can. To say his teachings were meant not to have anything to do with the political sphere at all is naive. What happens if a great number of people become Christians? |
Then Jesus' purpose is partially fulfilled. Of course, the number of true Christians relative to those who claim to be Christians will always be pretty small, anyway. Half of the Nazis were "Christians", but I doubt any of them were actually Christians.
quote:
What then? Obviously they impact politics. Are you saying that Jesus was blind to obvious foreseeable consequences? |
Much of this impact on politics that you speak of comes from the MISAPPLICATION of Jesus's teachings, not the application of his political slant. Do you really think that the influence of Christianity on the Thirty Years War, for example, was an example of the extension of any supposed political bias of Jesus?
Further, you ask if having a Christian in a position of leadership will impact politics. Sure it will (although less so in the US than you might think). That doesn't mean that Jesus meant his message to be political, though, except in the sense that he was teaching right and wrong.
quote:
I've heard of his revisionism before. Probably by rich folk who wanted to be able to get into heaven without living the life of the ascetic. |
OK, but the basic point I was making was the underlying message - the rich need to learn humility, which is difficult precisely because of their wealth, not that the rich are automatically disqualified from salvation.
quote:
Really? And where does Jesus say to harbor fugutive slaves? |
If Jesus taught that Christians should give of themselves to help others in need, then harboring a fugitive slave would certainly fit that definition.
quote:
And ignoring the law that offends Christian conscience has no political undertones? |
Sure, it can be seen that way. What you have to realize though, is that the assumption I'm working from is that Christianity is objectively correct, unlike political viewpoints. Given that, if a law is contrary to Christianity, than that law is objectively wrong, and ignoring that law isn't a political act, but rather a morally right act.
Naturally, this brings up the point of how to prove Christianity is objectively correct, which is something I'll leave to others. The main point, though, is that we are operating from different sets of assumptions, which is part of the problem we aren't really getting what the other is saying.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Agathon,
quote:
He certainly seems to have been interested in helping suffering people. |
True, but the difference between your values and those of Jesus is that Jesus favored voluntary charity, while you favor government-coerced transfers of wealth.
Kid,
quote:
Your claim that both natural rights and christianity are non-political shows how little you understand politics. |
I never claimed that about natural rights - Berz did. While I would tend to agree with him, I'm not going down that road. This isn't the thread for it. Create one, if you like.
quote:
It seems that politics to you only entails debating political ideologies. Every human action or belief is political. |
Good point, but when I use the phrase "Christianity is apolitical", I simply mean that there is no "Republican/Democrat/Socialist/Libertarian" slant to Jesus's teachings, and any slant that one perceives is coincidental. Jesus's teachings were not and are not meant to support any particular political viewpoint.
quote:
Claiming that a religion existing and changing over thousands of years is non-political... well, only libertarians and christians I'm afraid ... actually I should say only libertarians and libertarian christians would believe that. |
True, the various butchers who ruled Europe for centuries had little trouble using the Bible to justify their political views. Look at the carnage that caused.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Much of this impact on politics that you speak of comes from the MISAPPLICATION of Jesus's teachings |
No it doesn't. You think if Christians decided to give most of the weath, voluntarily (in this example), it won't have a political effect? A substantial change in socio-economic status of the society will always have large effects on politics.
quote:
That doesn't mean that Jesus meant his message to be political, though, except in the sense that he was teaching right and wrong. |
What do you think politics, in the end, is about? Who's right and wrong wins out over the others!
quote:
If Jesus taught that Christians should give of themselves to help others in need |
What about the slaveowner in need, who has lost his property?
quote:
he assumption I'm working from is that Christianity is objectively correct, unlike political viewpoints. Given that, if a law is contrary to Christianity, than that law is objectively wrong, and ignoring that law isn't a political act, but rather a morally right act. |
Unlike political viewpoints?! Sounds like natural law theory to me, which is a political viewpoint.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
No it doesn't. You think if Christians decided to give most of the weath, voluntarily (in this example), it won't have a political effect? A substantial change in socio-economic status of the society will always have large effects on politics. |
That doesn't change the fact that giving isn't meant to be about influencing a political outcome, it's about helping people.
quote:
What do you think politics, in the end, is about? Who's right and wrong wins out over the others! |
True, but OBJECTIVE right and wrong is by nature NOT based in politics. Sure, it'll influence politics, but nonetheless, Jesus's teachings about right and wrong are not done with any particular political slant or belief.
quote:
What about the slaveowner in need, who has lost his property? |
People can't be property, no matter what the state or the majority says.
quote:
Unlike political viewpoints?! Sounds like natural law theory to me, which is a political viewpoint. |
The difference, though, is that natural law theory comes from fallible humans, while Jesus's teachings come from a perfect infallible source.
Again, though, we are going a little off course. The main point is that regardless of any influence they may have on wordly politics, Jesus's teachings about helping the poor are designed simply to help the poor, not achieve a political outcome or get a certain person elected. On the other hand, that's EXACTLY what most wealth transfer programs currently on the books are or were about - professional politicians pandering to the electorate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
the rulers that you mention have very likely made Jesus' teachings seem apolitical, but they are not apolitical for that very reason. |
Right, they are apolitical because of their intent.
Looking at the political application and use of teachings meant to be apolitical, in order to justify things like the Spanish Inquisition, and saying that those acts mean the teachings were meant to be political doesn't really work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
The things he said were political. They were not objective truths. People disagreed with them. They still do. |
So, if I disagree with something that is true, then suddenly that truth is ambiguous? OK, I think that gravity won't make me fall if I jump off a building. I don't think I changed anything, though.
Can we agree that mere disagreement with objective truth does not invalidate objective truth?
quote:
You're confusing people's claims with reality. You will always have people who claim that what they believe are objective truths when they aren't. That doesn't make their beleifs apolitical. |
Exactly. On the other hand, stating an objective truth, that IS an objective truth, is not really a political statement.
But again, we're going off course. The intent of Jesus's teachings was not to influence politics, but rather to help people. That fact makes those teachings apolitical in their nature and intent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Exactly! So many different political groups consider themselves to have objective truth, whether from God, nature, or human nature. |
I agree, the problem is proving it. I thought we were both operating under the assumption that Christianity, and Jesus's teachings, have a basis in absolute truth. If we can't agree on that, then any discussion of Christianity and Jesus's teachings is useless. On the other hand, if we can agree on that, then this discussion about what people think and whether or not they disagree with objective truth is useless.
Either way, you're simply trying to complicate the issue by debating the point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
So if a person raise taxes because he really wants to help the poor and isn't doing it for votes, then he is not engaging in any political behavior because he is only trying to help people? |
No, raising taxes is directly coercing another to support your viewpoint, which is a political act.
On the other hand, telling people that they should help those in need, for the (actual, not stated) purpose of getting help to those who need it, are not really political in the same sense that you are when you raise taxes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Most flat tax proposal start at ~40K - ~30K, all dollars under it are exempt. Plus they would have to get rid of exemptions. I don't see how Bush has really moved toward this by flattening the curve. It really hasn't made it more politically feasible. |
Flat tax with a big exemption is perfectly fair. Everybody pays the same percentage on every penny they make over the excemption. It would certainly mean a hell of a lot less paperwork every year ahead of april 15th.
|
|
| |
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 10:14
.
.
|