Denver Bible Buying a Church!

[Granite]

I would hazard to guess that you and your wife are exceptional. But, take your case: You are a teacher and you would have had some formal schedule that you needed to stick to in order to teach. Everybody is going to need a source of income while they are raising their children so how do you reconcile that with finding time to teach your own kids math?

I have always wondered, when does a coop cross the line from coop to school?

:think:

Maybe one sign would be formal oversight and a system of standards? Good question though.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I was also speaking in generalities, nitwit.

Are you so shortsighted and small minded because you went to public school; I'm assuming so.

It is an education that has served me well. One of the most useful classes I have ever taken was as a high school junior. That one class has been as beneficial to me as my masters degree is. It was an elective for architectural drawing. And did you notice? That public school education set me up to get a masters degree in electrical engineering.

I don't need to be able to teach my children those things because I will not be their only teacher, and neither shall their mother be.

There are plenty of resources out there for those who need them, and everyone needs them, no matter how well educated they may be.

Why not just send them to a Christian school if you can't teach them at home?

If it's a home school co-op then it's a school from the start. Do you honestly think that matters?

Its more of a question of when does the state look at a home-school co-op and determine that it is not longer a home school but a private religious school.

 

[Lighthouse]

It is an education that has served me well. One of the most useful classes I have ever taken was as a high school junior. That one class has been as beneficial to me as my masters degree is. It was an elective for architectural drawing. And did you notice? That public school education set me up to get a masters degree in electrical engineering.

It set you up, alright.

You don't even realize students do better in electives, because they chose to be there; it's something in which they are already interested.

Why not just send them to a Christian school if you can't teach them at home?

I want them exposed to multiple view points.

Its more of a question of when does the state look at a home-school co-op and determine that it is not longer a home school but a private religious school.

Does that matter?

Seriously, you need to quit sniffing the wood stain.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It set you up, alright.

You don't even realize students do better in electives, because they chose to be there; it's something in which they are already interested.

Two things. Fist, electives did not get me into engineering school, that was core curriculum that got me into engineering school. Second, even as an elective, it was a well taught class.

I want them exposed to multiple view points.

So why not send them to a Christian school?

Does that matter?

Seriously, you need to quit sniffing the wood stain.

I don't know that it matters unless the state has some licensing requirements they would enforce on a large co-op.

 

[Lighthouse]

Two things. Fist, electives did not get me into engineering school, that was core curriculum that got me into engineering school.

No duh.

Second, even as an elective, it was a well taught class.

So?

So why not send them to a Christian school?

:bang:

My forehead's starting to bleed.

I don't know that it matters unless the state has some licensing requirements they would enforce on a large co-op.

It still wouldn't matter regarding the subject at hand.

 

[The Berean]

I could.

I am a math teacher who enjoys science (math/science), my wife is a graphic designer/painter/drawer/etc... with a degree in spanish...and she edits manuscripts on the side! (fine arts/language/English).

And on another note...one doesn't have to be the sole educator. There are homeschool co-ops. For example, my brother homeschools and he is a former music teacher and would give music lessons for other homeschooled kids in exchange for other parents who were skilled in a subject to teach his kids.

You know...the whole "village to raise a child" stuff.

There are a lot of good home school teaching material out there as. And website like Khan Academy are growing, too.

I believe that any parent with normal intelligence and desire can teach elementary school level material to their children. If my wife ever and I ever have kids we will homeschool our children. We will do this not because we are fearful (the silliest argument against home schooling, IMO) but because my wife and I believe we can give our children a far superior education that any school can.

 

[CabinetMaker]

There are a lot of good home school teaching material out there as. And website like Khan Academy are growing, too.

I believe that any parent with normal intelligence and desire can teach elementary school level material to their children. If my wife ever and I ever have kids we will homeschool out children. We will do this not because we are fearful (the silliest argument against home schooling, IMO) but because my wife and I believe we can give our children a far superior education that any school can.

Up to what grade level and then what.

 

[The Berean]

Up to what grade level and then what.

Depends on the situation and the kids. Who knows we may teach up through high school? I guess my wife and I will think more about when we actually have kids.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Depends on the situation and the kids. Who knows we may teach up through high school? I guess my wife and I will think more about when we actually have kids.

If you do have kids then they will already have the best thing in the world - parents who care and are involved.

 

[The Berean]

If you do have kids then they will already have the best thing in the world - parents who care and are involved.

My wife has such a mothering instinct. Many, many times I've seen her take a crying baby and calm the baby down in like 30 seconds. I don't know how she does it? I've seen moms look at her and exclaim, "How do you do that?!" My wife will rock as a mother.

I agree involved parents are the key to a child's success in school. When I was a kid my parents would ALWAYS go to Open House nights. They wanted to know how I was doing.

 

[serpentdove]

Denver Bible Buying a Church!

You can buy a building but you cannot buy a church. We are the church!

"Let's get specific, Bob!" ~ George Malley, Phenomenon

Happy Birthday! :jump: Ac 2

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you believe, based on Mark 12 that Caesar is rightly entitled to all of your money?

In my opinion Jesus didn't get into that subject in this particular story.

He certainly was affirming that government has some just reason to tax people.
Can I at least get you start by admitting that, if the Roman government would have instituted a 95% tax, that the Jews would not have been able to tithe and that would have been unjust?

I'm not even sure Jesus was actually giving Caesar anything. It was a tricky answer to a tricky question. If you want to justify paying taxes, Paul is probably a better source than Jesus in this particular case anyway, although Paul's support of government in Romans 13 seems to limit it to literally one function (Punishing evil.)

How is it ridiculous? How is that money already there? Or did you mean "theirs"? And if so, how is that much of the money we earn the government's take?


You're arguing from silence, because Jesus gave no number in that story, but you're forgetting one thing; God had already given a number for what was to be given to Him: ten percent.

So, do you think Jesus would ever advocate giving to Caesar more than one gives to God?

Here is what God had to say, through His prophet Samuel:

And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
-1 Samuel 8:11-18

So, for the government to take even as much as God is tyrannical.

There's a lot in this passage. I frequently use this as an argument against high taxation, but if you'll notice, its also at least implied that any kind of compulsory military service, eminent domain, and initiation of war are violations of the scripture. Or at least, Samuel impplies that any leader who does these things is a tyrant.

This is probably the best libertarian passage you can find in the scripture, bar none.

Even still, I fail to understand how you can justifiably argue that ANY money rightfully belongs to the government. I'd agree with you that its a necessary evil, and that God probably did have Paul write Romans 13 because he was aware of the reality that you can't actually avoid all government, but it still doesn't seem justifiable to me that Caesar actually owns any of your money simply because its there.

God clearly sets a maximum limit here, no more than 9.9%. And that's if you want an "Almost tyrant." I'd rather stay as far from that as possible. I'd be more than thrilled with a tax rate in the mid-single digits (4-6%) but I still can't justify taking that money through the threat of violence, philosophically speaking.

Just wondering, Lighthouse, how are you going to enforce the kind of moral laws you want to enforce with that little GDP? I'll even assume, since we haven't discussed them yet, that you completely agree with me on the issue of laissez faire economics and pulling American troops out of every foreign conflict. I still don't see how you can possibly put every drug user, homosexual, adulterer, and fornicator on trial as you have stated that you want to do, in addition to keeping the country safe from aggression by foreign powers and dealing with those people who violate the rights of others (Everything after the "In addition to" I agree with you that we need a government to do, everything before that is your views as I understand them, but I do not support the government doing those things) on less than 10% of GDP.

Government exists for infastructure, and to wield the sword of justice. Using government to redistribute wealth is stealing.

Where do you get the idea that government should deal with infrastructure? I'll take a Biblical or a philosophical argument here, either way. I don't think there is one. I'd privatize the roads and highways too...

But by your definition, even defense, courts and the cops are theft? Firemen? EMTs. Govt regulatory agencies---EPA, SEC, etc. All "theft".

Is it only those services that you approve of that is not theft? In that case we should each get to decide what govt programs we want to support. A bit unworkable, no?

Its all theft, but I also recognize reality. You can't have absolute perfection in this world. A minimal government to stop the criminals may steal 5% of GDP (Rough estimate) but if they protect the other 95% of it and punish those who violate our personal or property rights, there's going to be a lot less theft going on, and everyone will be a lot richer, than if we just had no government at all.

Its a moral compromise, yes. I don't see any way around it. I'm not really concerned with far off questions like how you could run a society without a State though. Feel free to try, but first we have to worry about breaking down Leviathan into something more manageable. I'd be more than happy with the government controlling more like 5% of GDP instead of the 44% or so they have now.

Five is absolutely rediculous. The government cannot steal that which, according to Jesus, is already there.

So everything belongs to the oligarchs in Washington DC? That's awfully nihilistic.

If I earn money, it belongs to me. Logically speaking, Caesar doesn't actually own anything.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So everything belongs to the oligarchs in Washington DC? That's awfully nihilistic.

If I earn money, it belongs to me. Logically speaking, Caesar doesn't actually own anything.

Jeus flatly disagrees with you. See abode.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Jeus flatly disagrees with you. See abode.

Jesus never said that Caesar owns anything he claims for himself. In fact, the Bible clearly denies this line of thinking multiple times. The Bible tells us to obey God rather than men.

Should Christians pay their taxes? In general, I believe we should. But that's because not doing so would dilute our witness in the eyes of the world and would cause Christians to be punished for what would seem to the casual observer to be a legitimate cause. Not because Government actually has a right to take anything it wants.

The Bible is pretty darn clear, at the least, that Caesar's rightful share is less than 10%.

 

[Delmar]

Jeus flatly disagrees with you. See abode.

With all do respect I believe you read way to much into that one line. The idea that, because the government mints the coins, every thing I work for belongs to the government is not even hinted at. After all, there are other ways to be paid instead of currency. According to the way you seem to be reading Mark 12, If I worked out for my employer to pay me in cattle I wouldn't need to pay any tax to the government because Cesar's face is not on my cattle.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Jesus never said that Caesar owns anything he claims for himself. In fact, the Bible clearly denies this line of thinking multiple times. The Bible tells us to obey God rather than men.

Should Christians pay their taxes? In general, I believe we should. But that's because not doing so would dilute our witness in the eyes of the world and would cause Christians to be punished for what would seem to the casual observer to be a legitimate cause. Not because Government actually has a right to take anything it wants.

The Bible is pretty darn clear, at the least, that Caesar's rightful share is less than 10%.

The bible puts no limits on it. Jesus points out that Cesaur's picture is on the money and says give to Cesar what is Cesaur's. seems to me you are far to concerned about earthly treasures.

 

[CabinetMaker]

With all do respect I believe you read way to much into that one line. The idea that, because the government mints the coins, every thing I work for belongs to the government is not even hinted at. After all, there are other ways to be paid instead of currency. According to the way you seem to be reading Mark 12, If I worked out for my employer to pay me in cattle I wouldn't need to pay any tax to the government because Cesar's face is not on my cattle.

A government would or t least cold levy a tax on the value of the deal. Many arguments cold be held over that. But, I think that people who claim that the government is stealing their money is putting far to much value on earthly treasures.

 

[Delmar]

A government would or t least cold levy a tax on the value of the deal. Many arguments cold be held over that. But, I think that people who claim that the government is stealing their money is putting far to much value on earthly treasures.

No, no, no, no! It is putting value on the worth of labor!

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, no, no, no! It is putting value on the worth of labor!

It is no different today than it was in Jesus's time. The government can morally collect taxes for those programs that they administer. The government can determine is barter is taxable. And putting to much monetary value on our earthly labors focuses our attentions on earthly treasures.

 

[Christian Liberty]

With all do respect I believe you read way to much into that one line. The idea that, because the government mints the coins, every thing I work for belongs to the government is not even hinted at. After all, there are other ways to be paid instead of currency. According to the way you seem to be reading Mark 12, If I worked out for my employer to pay me in cattle I wouldn't need to pay any tax to the government because Cesar's face is not on my cattle.

Logically, this would hold.

The bible puts no limits on it. Jesus points out that Cesaur's picture is on the money and says give to Cesar what is Cesaur's. seems to me you are far to concerned about earthly treasures.

So basically, because of one ambiguous line, you think everyone should bow down before the State?

To what extent we should care about earthly treasure is irrelevant to the question. Just because you shouldn't be overly concerned with worldy treasure doesn't give anyone the right to forcibly confiscate your money. Admittedly, conservatives are a bit morally inconsistent at this point in that they seek to enforce morality on social issues but not economic ones. But I'm not a conservative, so I definitely don't have that issue.

A government would or t least cold levy a tax on the value of the deal. Many arguments cold be held over that. But, I think that people who claim that the government is stealing their money is putting far to much value on earthly treasures.

How? Their picture isn't on the cattle? If that's the logic you're going to use...

No, no, no, no! It is putting value on the worth of labor!

Which is logically impossible according to real economic systems. Then again, governnment imposed fiat currency is just another way they steal from us.

It is no different today than it was in Jesus's time. The government can morally collect taxes for those programs that they administer. The government can determine is barter is taxable. And putting to much monetary value on our earthly labors focuses our attentions on earthly treasures.

Just because we should put less value on earthly treasures... even if the command "Sell all you have and give to the poor" was applicable to every single person ever (Note: I don't believe that's the case) does NOT give government any excuse to take the money at gunpoint.

Maybe I do put too much stock in earthly treasures, although I'm not exactly rolling in it by Western standards. I'm also still a high school student. I've got time yet to figure out how to eliminate any existing flaws in my ideology. But there's NOTHING Biblical about unlimited taxation. The Bible clearly limits government to the punishment of evildoers, and it clearly limits taxation to less than 10% of GDP (And you should only go close to that if you want an "Almost tyrannical" government.)