The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

eider

Well-known member
Sure. I went from skid row in Los Angeles as a teen, sleeping in an abandoned building on 4th and Spring to becoming a self made millionaire owning property in Hawaii, I’m a husband and a dad. I seriously doubt that that idiot could have done what I have with my challenges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I knew a down and out bankrupt who was sleeping rough........ a very rich lady fell in love with him ( :idunno: )and took him off the street. Within a month of their wedding he was boasting about how much he was worth. True.

....... dare I ask....... was your fiance rich? :D
 

WizardofOz

New member
If the government taxes us and then builds roads, is this an example of socialism? Why or why not?
No.

Because building roads is part of infrastructure.

But that doesn't really answer the question.

If the government takes your money and gives it to the poor, you call that socialism but if they take the same money and build roads, that isn't socialism. Either them taking the money is wrong or it isn't. Why isn't building government roads socialism? They take your money and build roads for the welfare of the nation. They think building roads will improve our country.

Do you see any parallels?

What is the difference between socialism and welfare capitalism?

Socialism is legalized plunder. It destroys the rule of law by sanctioning theft.
- Socialism: cattle rustlers get elected to the city council and decriminalized wealth redistribution.
- A socialist will give you the shirt off of another man’s back.
- Socialism makes conspirators of the public as it convicts them of theft*-by*-receiving.

Again, if your neighbor robs you, is it only theft if he spends your money in a way you don't approve? You stated that it doesn't but you keep arguing that what the money is spent on determines the morality of the taking of the money to begin with.

I wonder how WWII would have turned out with the above in place.

Sprechen sie Deutsch?

We would have had a far superior military than we did, because all the money we used for things other than criminal justice and infrastructure would have been used for both (CJ includes the armed forces).

But we would have had a lot less money to spend on the military if the government only taxed 5%. Do you realize how high the tax rate was during the war?

If we have a lot less money to spend on the war effort, how would our military have been far superior? If you cut out all spending other than for the military but only taxed at a 5% rate, there would have been far less financial resources. I can do the math if you're unconvinced but it's an obvious truth.

So you think that all taxation is wrong?

I asked if it was right or wrong, not if it was necessary. Is it wrong for the government to tax its citizens?

Taxation is amoral. It is neither 'right' nor 'wrong'. Over-taxation is most certainly immoral. If the tax drives citizens into poverty or starvation, then it is immoral, for example.

As far as I'm concerned, America's government can never spend too much on military and defense, so long as it doesn't affect the quality of infrastructure, and vice versa.

What would happen to our military if we taxed at a 5% rate, even if we spent all tax revenue on the military?
 

eider

Well-known member
I use moral laws, which are absolute. It's always wrong to steal. It's always wrong to murder. It's always wrong to rape, or to kidnap, or to have incest, or to commit adultery. It's always wrong to bear false witness. It's always wrong to kill a baby, even in the womb, because it's a baby, an innocent human being made in the image of God.

You use moral laws?
But you ignore many OT laws, it seems, which require you to support the poor, not by charity but by law.
The poor-laws of the OT........ We already know it's wrong to steal, murder, kidnap, pervert justice etc, but we were talking about you paying you taxes and paying up in support of your beliefs.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Theft: the action or crime of stealing.
Literally no one is unclear about that. I didn't ask you to define stealing.

Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
I understand what stealing is...though I hear people use it in a way that tells me they essentially don't. The government has the legal right to levy taxes. So that kills your charge right there. You may believe the level of taxes are outrageous or immoral, but you cannot call them theft.

Every law is backed by the promise of consequence if you fail to meet your obligations to it. True of the rate you object to and true of the one you find acceptable. So you can't rest on that as though it's meaningful only when you don't like the rate.

The government does not have the legal right to fund socialist programs. Therefore, any money that they take to fund such programs is theft.
Sure it does. Interstates, public education, etc. We the people can fund any program we find valuable to the society. It's perfectly legal, an operation of our laws and structures.

I have already said there is nothing inherently wrong with taxation.
And you're right. The rest is just deciding how much and applied how, which is why we elect representatives.

There is a limit to taxation, and God did not contradict Himself when He said a 10% tax is wicked, by saying "render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's."
Where in scripture does it say a 10% tax by Caesar is wicked? I'd agree that almost any tax Rome set out was abusive, if mostly because it wasn't voluntary in any sense of the word. You had to pay the conqueror for whatever he provided in return, which mostly seemed to be things that made it easy for him to continue to occupy and make money off of them.

What I know about our relationship to Caesar is this: Romans 13 makes it clear we are to submit to the lawful authority. Romans 13:6-7 are pretty clear about paying taxes, but I don't recall anything about percentages relating to secular authority and tithing is a separate matter.

No, it's not like beauty. Beauty is based on subjective opinion. God says anything above a 10% tax is tyrannical. That's fact, not opinion.
Not until you establish the fact of it, supra.

A wicked system that puts a burden on the people who are under it.
Rome was about as wicked a system as you could have. Christ said to submit to its authority. Any tax is a burden, but there's nothing inherently wicked in our system of taxation. We derive all sorts of benefits and if we don't care for the system we are free to find another compact and join it.

Have you ever tried to avoid paying some or all of your taxes? What happens?
You need to address what I actually wrote and not the point you think you can answer that I didn't. I said you don't have to remain a part of this system. You don't like the movie? Don't go to the theater. You don't like the justice system or the taxation system here, you can opt out. Or you can remain and meet your legal obligations while you attempt to convince enough Americans to change the system. What you can't do is watch the movie/derive the benefit and not meet your obligation under the laws of our compact.

So you separated half the sentence in order to write that... Remarkable.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Um, where can I find scripture stating this.
Romans and Matthew, but I wasn't offering a religious position. I was making a statement of objective fact relating to our government that sets out the laws by which our obligations are established.

You can call taxes theft. You can call property theft. Many do, but they're not people anyone can have a reasonable conversation with, since their foundation is skewed to reject the legitimacy of law that conflicts with their own desires.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Romans and Matthew, but I wasn't offering a religious position. I was making a statement of objective fact relating to our government. You can call taxes theft. You can call property theft. Many do, but they're not people anyone can have a reasonable conversation with, since their foundation is skewed to reject the legitimacy of law that conflicts with their own desires.

I looked, but didn't see where it said it has the legal right. I think your more infering it. Reading something that isn't there. But be that as it may, JR, rightly, has brought scripture to bear on the topic. I'm not interested in what objective worldly things you may want to bring to the table.

well, we do it....;blah
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
That's true. When you're right, you're right.


See, it was worth reading the post of an agnostic. Aren't you glad you did, even though two days ago...


In the end analysis I have come to the conclusion that, the opinions (posts) of far-leftists, atheists/agnostics, and posters who say they are Christians, but in truth, are not, are not worth the time and effort to read what they have to say or to argue with. They're all starting to sound the same and I have no intention of reading anything they have to say. From now on, I'll ONLY read what members of the Body of Christ are saying.



:)
 

eider

Well-known member
I said socialist programs inherently violate God's enduring command, "thou shall not steal."

In order to claim that socialism is not antithetical to Christianity, you need to explain how forcibly (in other words, you'll be punished if you don't comply) taking money from one person and giving it to another is not theft.

I am not against taxation. I am against OVER-taxation.


Forcibly taking money from someone is called theft. Add on top of that giving it to someone who did not earn that money makes it worse.

I thought that you followed the bible's guidance and laws?

You are required to lend money to the poor in need, and if the poor debtor cannot pay back then you may not press for your funds. Exodus 22:24

You may not take a pledge for a loan from a widow. Deut 24:17

You are required to subsidise a poor man. Deut. 15:7 and you cannot press for repayment if such a poor man cannot repay. Deut. 24:10

Above all....... you are required to maintain the poor! Deut. 15:7

Further to that, it's quite reasonable to expect you to extend the OT poor-laws on farming into today's commerce and industry, whereby a % of produce should be put aside for the poor to collect as they need.

It's all in the bible....... but you seem to have ignored it all?
 

eider

Well-known member
My question to you would be ... how are unborn babies produced via rape less worthy of life than all other unborn babies? They are innocent. Insofar as extreme disability, yes, it's a hardship ... on the parents. Does that make the child less worthy of life?

In both cases I would not wish or vote for pressure to be applied to a pregnant woman either way. I believe absolutely that she should have choice in such situations.

Question:- What do you believe happens to infants when they die?
 

eider

Well-known member
Why shouldn't the goal be to save BOTH the mother and the child instead of intentionally killing the unborn baby?

In many cases it can be. There are cases where the situation is far too dangerous. Where specialists decide on the latter then they should have the right to explain the situation to the woman and the decision should be hers. Would you put pressure on such a woman at such a time to continue ...?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I looked, but didn't see where it said it has the legal right.
Look harder. Romans establishes the authority of government right before it speaks to our role. Jesus said to give Caesar what was his due and Caesar establishes that as surely as he mints the coin Christ held.

I think your more infering it.
No, it's fairly plain, but I'm wasn't really advancing a biblical argument in the main, since what I was responding to at that point wasn't biblical, but secular. JR wasn't using scripture to define theft/stealing.

Reading something that isn't there.
So far that appears to be the province of JR and his wicked 10% in relation to taxes. I think he may be conflating tithes which is another horse and another color.

Let's look at scripture together, beginning with authority.

6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Romans 13:6-7

13
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Romans 13:1

13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,[a] whether it be to the emperor[b] as supreme,14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 1 Peter 2:13-14

Then there's what Christ had to say about it:
17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.[a]20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Matthew 22:17-21

Christ also addresses the thumb on the scale habit of tax collectors of his day, and when he does so it's to warn them off the practice. What he doesn't do is get into a dispute over the rate of those taxes:
12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?”13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” Luke 3:12-13

But be that as it may, JR, rightly, has brought scripture to bear on the topic.
In fact he hasn't. He's stated a thing more than once without once providing the scripture he appears to reference.

I'm not interested in what objective worldly things you may want to bring to the table.
I don't care that you're not interested in meeting a rational posit. I rather thought you wouldn't be, because you're one of those sorts of people with that objectively skewed context that makes rational discourse on the point a bit pointless.

well, we do it....;blah
See? That's not what I said at all. You're incapable of a fair analysis on the point because your foundation is skewed and doesn't permit it. Even in something that relatively small.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In many cases it can be. There are cases where the situation is far too dangerous. Where specialists decide on the latter then they should have the right to explain the situation to the woman and the decision should be hers. Would you put pressure on such a woman at such a time to continue ...?

I would state clearly that the only goal with abortion is to kill the unborn baby ... and that is what is achieved.
 

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

I knew a down and out bankrupt who was sleeping rough........ a very rich lady fell in love with him ( :idunno: )and took him off the street. Within a month of their wedding he was boasting about how much he was worth. True.

....... dare I ask....... was your fiance rich? [emoji3]

I got into rope access work in the early90’s

Honolulu has the fourth most high rises in America, my company has 10 rope access technicians. My beautiful wife was working as a travel agent when I met her at church, she never had to work after our first child was born 21 years ago. Maga my miggah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
What exactly was debunked? Does God ever regulate sin anywhere in the Bible?

When asked if taxation was proper, He asked to see a coin. Finding Caesar's face on it, He told his questioners to give to Caesar that which was Caesar's, and to God that which was God's.

If you call that "regulating sin", I don't see how.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When asked if taxation was proper, He asked to see a coin. Finding Caesar's face on it, He told his questioners to give to Caesar that which was Caesar's, and to God that which was God's.

Typical Blablaman: Won't respond honestly and won't listen.

It is not taxation that is wrong.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
Top