The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Town Heretic]

He can, but you can get away.

I hate seeing it, watching a facile mind attempt to defend a purely emotional position at odds with objective truth.

 

[drbrumley]

Town, in all his bluster, really thinks in his heart of hearts when Jesus told Peter to go fishing for the coin to pay the tax, that he endorses it. Never mind that Peter was asked if Jesus did NOT pay the tax, Peter's response was Jesus didn't. But since it was brought up, so as to not offend them, He said go fishing and get the coin. But that's a ringing endorsement to Town. Good job Town! I like to know how jumped to that conclusion.

 

[drbrumley]

I hate seeing it, watching a facile mind attempt to defend a purely emotional position at odds with objective truth.

:rotfl: emotional. Obviously you jump to conclusions in awful lot.

 

[Ktoyou]

Born 1894 no taxes until around 1916, thank you Wilson, ya jerk, then no fake society until 1964 when I would have been 70 yeas old and then die when Reagan was in office, die around 1980, or maybe 1985, how nice!

Never have to know about gay marriage and transgender fools!

 

[Ktoyou]

I hate seeing it, watching a facile mind attempt to defend a purely emotional position at odds with objective truth.

Well maybe, but admit it, you are more emotional than me

 

[Town Heretic]

Well maybe, but admit it, you are more emotional than me

I think you're less easily offended, which is a bit different, but then I'm a lot harder to get to that point than I was when I arrived here, so there's hope on the point. I suspect time does that to us if we're paying attention. There's only so much nonsense to take seriously before you start to recognize it's nonsense.

 

[Town Heretic]

:rotfl: emotional. Obviously you jump to conclusions in awful lot.

No, it's just that when I see you largely ignoring the argument to declare things about me that you can't sustain by actually quoting me I attribute it to emotion, subjective feeling. Otherwise I'm left to either question your rational ability or your character, which I'd rather not do.

 

[Town Heretic]

Town, in all his bluster, really thinks in his heart of hearts when Jesus told Peter to go fishing for the coin to pay the tax, that he endorses it.

Like that. Horrible mind reading or worse creative writing. Rather, Jesus had them pay the tax. He also said, looking at Caesar's coin, that we were to give Caesar what was his. Couple that with the other scripture I've provided and there's no doubt about what we should do. Using words like endorse can be nothing more or less than a way of looking at anything other than the clarity of our obligation, which you don't like.

Never mind that Peter was asked if Jesus did NOT pay the tax, Peter's response was Jesus didn't. But since it was brought up, so as to not offend them, He said go fishing and get the coin. But that's a ringing endorsement to Town. Good job Town! I like to know how jumped to that conclusion.

And that, again, is why I attribute your position to emotion. You begin by using a word I didn't use to describe what Christ told us to do, then you take that word that only came from you and add "ringing" and an exclamation along with a desire to know how I arrived at a point that remains entirely your own creation.

If you're going to write fiction, write your own ending for it. But don't represent it as part of a biography.

 

[Town Heretic]

Ain't it so! I have to pay more than double for medicare, and then all my SS is taxable, because I am in such a high tax bracket,, even though I do not even have a job. So we live by rob the wealthy in this society. I wish I was born 50 years earlier, yes, that would have been the days. Born a bell of the 1840s, how sweet, oh, no, that is 100 years ago, outdoor toilets, not for me, so I mean 1890s. the gay 90s but no gays. Now were cooking with gas!

The tax rate on the poor wealthy [/sarcasm] is lower than it was during the economic boom that followed WWII by a staggering margin and lower than it was during the subsequent economic expansions under Reagan (he lowered it from 70 to 28 toward the end of his 2nd term) and Clinton (who raised it to 39+ during his economic boom). My father and his friends are doubtless overjoyed, but let's not gnash teeth and rend garments over the plight of the wealthiest.

 

[Ktoyou]

I think you're less easily offended, which is a bit different, but then I'm a lot harder to get to that point than I was when I arrived here, so there's hope on the point. I suspect time does that to us if we're paying attention. There's only so much nonsense to take seriously before you start to recognize it's nonsense.

I agree. I have a sister who is very good at theology, but blows it when other members get to her and she is a real rep addict. She got in Dutch here over the stupid rep system and had a fit about it.

Now I am not saying you have the same issues, but you do let people get to you. These web forums are not the same as knowing people in a real sense.

Web forums will always be surreal and sometime more for some than others, so, it is hard to know where you stand with anyone.

 

[drbrumley]

And it isn't emotional on your part to declare like it or leave it. Hypocrisy much?

 

[ok doser]

He also said, looking at Caesar's coin, that we were to give Caesar what was his.

Doesn't that support a100% tax rate?

Or a move toward a barter economy?

 

[Town Heretic]

I agree. I have a sister who is very good at theology, but blows it when other members get to her and she is a real rep addict. She got in Dutch here over the stupid rep system and had a fit about it. Now I am not saying you have the same issues, but you do let people get to you.

More so on points of personal honor and more earlier than these days. In my actual life people who lacked a personal code sufficient for decent society were shown the door in short order or you didn't enter theirs again. The notion of sharing a common space with people who don't appear to feel the least bit of shame over disreputable conduct was a new experience for me. It took a while before my reflexive response to it was tempered by experience, but it came to me. I can't tell you the last time I was particularly offended. Most of the trolls around here and their methodologies are old hat.

These web forums are not the same as knowing people in a real sense.

True.

Web forums will always be surreal and sometime more for some than others, so, it is hard to know where you stand with anyone.

I came here as I was and for as long as I remain here I won't be or act differently than I am. I don't understand people who do, though I do understand a good many people come to places like this to do exactly that. I think it's vulgar as pursuits go, but...people, what are you going to do about them?

 

[Town Heretic]

And it isn't emotional on your part to declare like it or leave it. Hypocrisy much?

See, you did it again. It would be emotional to say, "Like it or leave it," as a personal declaration in answer to an objection, but that isn't what I did. What I did was to note that taxes and participation are voluntary acts. The way you know this is that you can opt out. You are free to leave. And that's not my personal position, it's the objective truth.

 

[ok doser]

....people, what are you going to do about them?

turn 'em into soylent green?

 

[drbrumley]

See, you did it again. It would be emotional to say, "Like it or leave it," as a personal declaration in answer to an objection, but that isn't what I did. What I did was to note that taxes and participation are voluntary acts. The way you know this is that you can opt out. You are free to leave. And that's not my personal position, it's the objective truth.

So you're not arguing in a position you believe in? Didn't seem like that to me.

 

[intojoy]

They are so far gone I doubt if that would work. What would work is the shock therapy of the electric chair!

I was referring to the Samoan btcih slap


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

It is like you are becoming my buddy!

Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age... :sigh:

 

[intojoy]

Actually, you're wrong in just about every part. Our government, we the people, has the right to help the poor collectively. We're actually doing more than the people of Israel were obligated to do in their day. And you've yet to provide scriptural support for you ideas about God's limitations on government, while I've supplied scriptural support for government authority, which is the root of our laws.


Except that it isn't theft. Theft is an unlawful taking of something from someone who has legal claim to it.


A store can charge anything you're willing to pay, provided you understand what you're paying. If a store tries to make a bargain with you and then attempts to change that bargain they have legal troubles ahead.


That's not God commanding all governments to build roads. It's a very specific situation involving sanctuary cities. Or do you also believe all governments should divide their land into 3rds and build sanctuary cities?


Then there's no such thing, because God compels it and always has.


It's neither. And the state takes up taxes at large then determines the best way to spend them in particular.


It's a commandment by the most inherently coercive force in the universe. Or do you think the idea that what you fail to do for the poor you fail to do for God is a suggestion of sorts. Do or don't do sort of thing, just a suggestion, no consequences attending?


No support for your idea in the latter, or for how you choose to see helping those who aren't in a position to provide for themselves.


I know you believe that, but you won't demonstrate God limiting the operation of government like that. In fact, charity was built into the law.


In order, I didn't say you did and I never did. Way to dodge what I'm actually saying though.

You'd just written that stealing was taking without legal right. My response is that the law cannot be "without legal right" so you lose at the outset. It's not stealing, can't be. It can be immoral and objectionable to your mind, but it can't rationally be considered theft.


You keep saying that. I don't believe you have it right. Which is why I've repeatedly asked you for scriptural support for that. And you've yet to set it out.


And given what little government provided in return that seems fair and just. What isn't there is God calling more than that, without even touching upon the foundation of government providing a good bit more than border security and judgement, "wicked". Or in any sense forbidding a government from doing more. You just don't like taxes, don't like how they're spent, and you want a moral leg to stand on in opposition.


It's not obvious when you don't frame it that way. All you needed to do is substitute "refuses" for "does not." Because they aren't saying the same thing.


If a parent abandons their responsibility to anyone the sin and the fault are theirs. But sending a child to school isn't that, whether done privately or publicly.


Caesar has a right to lay taxes and spend on whatever he wants. Fortunately, in our government, we are Caesar. In that the state is expressing authority given to it by God.


I gave you two major social programs doing a definable good and you've yet to do more than wave hands at them. What's the point in expanding a list you haven't really answered with rebuttal of any substantive sort? Saying interestates, a social program, isn't a social program doesn't make it so.

Trying to suggest education is the province of the parent is in the sense you use it as mistaken as suggesting that because the health of a child is the parent's responsibility they should practice medicine on the child instead of seeing to it that the child has a doctor.


Except a republic, our representative democracy, is a self-determining government where "we the people" is an apt description. The people elect representatives to hammer out our laws by that means, to speak for us with our voice. So no matter how you yell, "No!" the truth is plain and observable.


Caesar was the government in that day and I've read and responded to Samuel as you used it. It doesn't say what you're saying. So if that's it you're making some of your charge up.


That's evasion, not counter. And I set out a good bit of scripture in support. Set it out to be read.

No idea why you added a number of other particular rebuttals from me without responding, but...thanks?


Sure. When you divided a sentence in half so you could write "Duh" I think that speaks to something worth pointing out. I'd also note it if you starting randomly cursing, even though it wasn't substantive, because it's indicative.

Also, putting a lot of different responses into a needlessly long post where you move in and out of different conversations makes it a royal pain to answer, as well as creating a needlessly long post. When you do that and someone goes into quote mode it doesn't distinguish between quotes aimed to one person or the other. So you need two windows or a lot of scrolling to get to the parts that are responsive.



That's funny.


I always preview and it looks fine to me. Maybe it's your phone or something. :idunno: Way to dodge all that scripture though. :thumb:

That’s your fallen nature talking. Reasoning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

So you're not arguing in a position you believe in? Didn't seem like that to me.

This isn't a question of belief. I have related literal truth about both scripture and law. How I feel about any of it needn't enter in because it doesn't alter either truth.