Would you pay a tax to ISIS to keep your life?

[PureX]

Do you have any evidence for this? From the Scriptures? From Tradition? Because if we accept what Jesus says in the gospels, what you are saying isn't true.

"But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33).

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Not to mention what Jesus says in the last supper about St. Peter denying him three times before the rooster crows.

Did St. Peter sin three times or not? If he did not, then why did Jesus ask St. Peter three times whether he loved Him?

And again, there's the practical example of St. Peter and St. Paul, both of whom were crowned with martyrdom.

"Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake" (Matthew 5:11).

You can't say what you are saying and claim to be a Christian.

You need to try and understand the difference between the truth of Christ that is available to us all, through our experience of reality, and the religion that man has developed based on their interpretations of an iconic legend.

I doubt that you will try, but I'm being honest with you, anyway.

 

[PureX]

Is that completely comparable to ISIS, though? I don't think it is if we begin to consider the aspect of giving financial support to terrorists.

I would not be "giving them support". They would be taking it against my will, at gunpoint.

 

[PureX]

Against 2 is Matthew 7:21-23. Willing to confess one's faith in Jesus verbally when the circumstances are appropriate is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for being a Christian.

I like to view it on the analogy of a lover. Simply saying "I love x" doesn't mean that you really love x. But if you really love x, you probably won't publically denounce x.

How about rape. Would you demand that your daughter fight to her death rather than be raped? Or does it depend on the rapist. Should she only fight to her death if the rapist is of a religion that you abhor?

Is your daughter's virginity worth more to you than her life?

Do you really think your religious proclamations are worth more to God than your life?

 

[Letsargue]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...an Christians - Meredith Hamilton - CSMonitor



Would you pay? Why or why not?

I'm familiar with this tax in the context of Muslim rule centuries ago but didn't realize it still happened. Or maybe ISIS is bringing it back? I never remember hearing about this with other Islamic extremist groups.

I Will Not DO "Anything" to Lengthen MY LIFE!!! - I "Never" take ANY Medicine for Anything but joint pains so I can sleep that night, / Aspirins. - Not like The False "Christians", who WHEN Christ sends His Angels to bring them Home; - ( THEY GO To the Doctor or Hospital Instead ), to Stay Away From GOD!!! - I Will Not Do Anything to NOT Go Back Home!!!

((( Watch and Read Your N-E-W-S!!!!! ))!!!

PAUL, DAVID -- 082315

 

[Traditio]

That doesn't mean what you think it means.
You need to try and understand the difference between the truth of Christ that is available to us all, through our experience of reality, and the religion that man has developed based on their interpretations of an iconic legend.

There is no such thing as a "truth of Christ that is available to us all, through our experience of reality." That would make Christianity a philosophy, and Christianity is not a philosophy. If that's what Christianity is, then Christianity, and Judaism for that matter, are perfectly superfluous. If the Law and the gospels tell me no more than I could have known without their aid, then I have no need of them. "The books of the Platonists," as St. Augustine calls them, suffice.

But that's not what Christianity is.

Christianity is, first and foremost, a deposit of faith, and "faith," St. Paul tells us, "is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" (Hebrews 1:11). If Christianity were a philosophy, then it would be the substance of things known, and the evidence of things that appear readily, at least, to anyone of substantial learning and reflection. In fact, you say as much when you speak of "experience."

But Christianity is not such a thing. It is a faith in "things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."

And what are these things that appear not?

"Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:15-17).

The fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is in the Incarnation, i.e., that at a discrete moment in time, God became a man.

And why did He did this? To tell us things that we readily could have known through "experience"? That would be superfluous.

What you are effectively doing, Pure X, is denying the truth of the Incarnation. You cannot deny the Incarnation and still lay claim to being a Christian. [Though, of course, I can understand the tendency in the generally protestant U.S. to do so. The protestant denial of the sacraments, of the mass and of the visible, hierarchical Church, ultimately implies, at least in part, a denial of the Incarnation.]

I recommend: St. John's gospel, the epistles of St. John, St. Paul's epistles to the Hebrews and Romans. You should consider re-reading them and praying to God for the gift of faith.

There's actually a thread on TOL where I give a chapter by chapter commentary on St. John's gospel. Interested in a link?

 

[Traditio]

How about rape. Would you demand that your daughter fight to her death rather than be raped? Or does it depend on the rapist. Should she only fight to her death if the rapist is of a religion that you abhor?

Is your daughter's virginity worth more to you than her life?

Do you really think your religious proclamations are worth more to God than your life?

You are conflating action (doing) and passion (suffering).

Does a woman have an obligation to defend herself from rape even if means dying? I don't know.

But there is an obligation never to do intrinsic moral evil, even for the sake of any good that might result.

If Christ is God, then we are not permitted to deny Him publically before others. Consider how easily St. Peter might have avoided crucifixion. But we see how Jesus speaks to him:

"Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me" (John 21:18-19).

If Jesus is God, we owe Him our unqualified love and devotion, even if it means being persecuted and killed because of it.

St. Peter knew his duty. "Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, that in this night before the [rooster] crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. Peter saith to him: Yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee" (Matthew 26:34-35).

But he denies Jesus three times to save his own skin, and in this, he sinned.

Does that seem too harsh?

Then recall that Jesus Himself died on a cross. Consider the sufferings of Our Lord in His passion, and you may re-evaluate your own opinions.

You put too much stock in living at all costs. Remember what Jesus Himself says:

"Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone. But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world, keepeth it unto life eternal" (John 12:24-25).

 

[achduke]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...an Christians - Meredith Hamilton - CSMonitor



Would you pay? Why or why not?

I'm familiar with this tax in the context of Muslim rule centuries ago but didn't realize it still happened. Or maybe ISIS is bringing it back? I never remember hearing about this with other Islamic extremist groups.

How far is it from paying a tax to the beast system to taking the mark of the beast? Especially when most do not know what the mark is. When do they cross that line and take the mark of the beast?

 

[PureX]

If Christ is God, then we are not permitted to deny Him publically before others.

Jesus didn't write, interpret, and rewrite the words that have been attributed to him. Religionists, seeking to establish and maintain their theological authority did. So it makes sense that they would have placed allegiance above all else, even one's own life.

But Jesus preached about the spirit of God manifesting within us: as love and forgiveness toward others, not adherence to religious laws and authorities. Jesus would not have been concerned about pledges of allegiance, but rather the manifestation of the spirit of God within. I don't believe he would demand that those he loved (us) forfeit their lives just to pledge allegiance to some religious ideal, including even the religion that later claimed to be based on him. It's just not in keeping with his message.

Consider how easily St. Peter might have avoided crucifixion. But we see how Jesus speaks to him:

"Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me" (John 21:18-19).

You will note that the language, there, is mediaeval, because the interpretation is mediaeval. The actual conversation could very easily have had a very different meaning than the one you and the mediaeval scribe who wrote those words are attributing to it.

If Jesus is God, we owe Him our unqualified love and devotion, even if it means being persecuted and killed because of it.

No one can control our spirit. So all we're talking about are words of allegiance, not our love or devotion.

St. Peter knew his duty. "Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, that in this night before the [rooster] crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. Peter saith to him: Yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee" (Matthew 26:34-35).

But he denies Jesus three times to save his own skin, and in this, he sinned.

That wasn't a "sin".

Does that seem too harsh?

No, it seems absurd. And it is absurd. It's the absurdity of a religious dogma that seeks to elevate adherence to a state of importance greater than life, itself. It's not a demand based on the spirit within, but on the false pride of worldly pledges.

Then recall that Jesus Himself died on a cross. Consider the sufferings of Our Lord in His passion, and you may re-evaluate your own opinions.

Jesus didn't die for the sake of worldly pledges. He died exemplifying God's love and forgiveness for all (even his torturers and murderers).

You put too much stock in living at all costs.

It's not about living at all costs. It's about exemplifying the spirit of God's love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity with our being. And we can't do that when we're dead. Nor are we doing that by dying foolishly, over some meaningless words.

 

[kmoney]

It's a very rare occasion that I can say that I agree with Traditio. Matthew 10:33 is the main reason that I lean toward saying no if I were told to pay the tax. I look at it as denying my faith in Christ.

Why? Paying a tax isn't explicitly denying faith in Christ. I think it's possible, but it would depend on why you're doing it.

 

[kmoney]

I would not be "giving them support". They would be taking it against my will, at gunpoint.

Your intention wouldn't be, but for practical purposes you are. And there is a big difference between giving practical support to a common thief who mugs you and a terrorist organization that is seeking to create an empire and subject everyone to their fanaticism. I'm not saying you necessarily should sacrifice your life rather than pay the tax, but I don't think a thief is a very good analogy.

 

[PureX]

Your intention wouldn't be, but for practical purposes you are.

I don't control practical purposes. I leave that to God. All I can do is follow my best intentions to the degree that I am able. And forfeiting my life over a few dollars that the killers would get after I'm dead, anyway, would not serve anyone, nor would it somehow dis-serve the killers. So it would be a total waste of my life. Whereas if I survive, I can live to do more good, later. And perhaps 'dis-serve' the killers, too.

And there is a big difference between giving practical support to a common thief who mugs you and a terrorist organization that is seeking to create an empire and subject everyone to their fanaticism. I'm not saying you necessarily should sacrifice your life rather than pay the tax, but I don't think a thief is a very good analogy.

A rapist is a rapist regardless of his excuses (ideology). Same with a thief, and a murderer.

And the ideology excuse doesn't fly with me, in particular, because I don't believe anyone should die over meaningless pledges of allegiance to worldly dogmas and institutions (and they are ALL worldly if they demand such allegiance).

 

[Nick M]

Against 2 is Matthew 7:21-23. Willing to confess one's faith in Jesus verbally when the circumstances are appropriate is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for being a Christian.

No kidding. Nobody said otherwise.

Luke 6

45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart[a] brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.


Matthew 12

37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”


I give you some red letters in blue because I think you will pay attention to them, just not when he was risen.

 

[Traditio]

Jesus didn't write, interpret, and rewrite the words that have been attributed to him. Religionists, seeking to establish and maintain their theological authority did. So it makes sense that they would have placed allegiance above all else, even one's own life.

If this is your position, then you have, not only poor reason for believing in Jesus and his doctrines (as do the protestants, who foolishly rest their faith entirely in a book, which they utterly have ripped apart from all historical and liturgical context), but none whatsoever.

The protestants reject Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the Church, but at least accept the authority of the Scriptures. If you reject all three, then you have no basis at all for believing that Jesus actually taught x rather than not x or that Jesus did y as opposed to not y.

But Jesus preached about the spirit of God manifesting within us: as love and forgiveness toward others, not adherence to religious laws and authorities. Jesus would not have been concerned about pledges of allegiance, but rather the manifestation of the spirit of God within. I don't believe he would demand that those he loved (us) forfeit their lives just to pledge allegiance to some religious ideal, including even the religion that later claimed to be based on him. It's just not in keeping with his message.

Even if even a tiny shred of what you just said is true, what possible grounds do you have for believing it? Because you read it in the Bible? You reject its inerrancy.

Just be honest, Pure X. You don't care about Jesus' teaching. You don't believe in Christianity. You believe in your own misguided delusions (even moreso than the protestants, who at least imagine that they are drawing their delusions from the scriptures). Ultimately, that's why you cherry pick. "Verses x, y and z agree with me, so I'll accept those as true. But I disagree with a, b and c; so, they clearly must have been medieval interpolations." You don't accept scriptural authority. You only believe in your own (which is, let us note, absolutely nil).

You will note that the language, there, is mediaeval, because the interpretation is mediaeval. The actual conversation could very easily have had a very different meaning than the one you and the mediaeval scribe who wrote those words are attributing to it.

Do you want me to consult the Greek? I can consult the Greek if that's what you want.

No one can control our spirit. So all we're talking about are words of allegiance, not our love or devotion.

That wasn't a "sin".

St. Peter disagreed. "And the Lord turning looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, as he had said: Before the [rooster] crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. [62] And Peter going out, wept bitterly" (Luke 22:61-62).

Again, why do you suppose that St. Peter lept out of the boat, after Our Lord's resurrection, swam to shore and ran to Our Lord? Why do you suppose that Our Lord asks St. Peter three times whether he loves Him?

Because St. Peter sinned. He needed reconcilation. He needed to be forgiven.

 

[PureX]

If this is your position, then you have, not only poor reason for believing in Jesus and his doctrines (as do the protestants, who foolishly rest their faith entirely in a book, which they utterly have ripped apart from all historical and liturgical context), but none whatsoever.

I have an excellent reason to believe in Christ; and that is that doing so works! But believing in Christ doesn't mean I have to accept every word some religionist wrote back in the middle ages. Or some religionist before him wrote in a letter to someone. Or what some 'believer' in Jesus' own time thought he said or meant. The truth stands on it's own. It doesn't need magically inerrant holy books to verify it. We can simply put the concept to the test, and see if it works.

The protestants reject Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the Church, but at least accept the authority of the Scriptures. If you reject all three, then you have no basis at all for believing that Jesus actually taught x rather than not x or that Jesus did y as opposed to not y.

The basis is called reality. The truth, after all, is what is.

Just be honest, Pure X. You don't care about Jesus' teaching.

According to the story, it was Jesus that introduced mankind to a whole new way of understanding God. An 'internalized' way. A humanized way. And I care about that a great deal, because I believe in this new way of understanding "God", as it has saved my life, and my sanity.

You don't believe in Christianity.

I am not particularly religious. If you can't separate religion from Christ, then you won't be able to understand how I understand Christ.

You believe in your own misguided delusions (even moreso than the protestants, who at least imagine that they are drawing their delusions from the scriptures). Ultimately, that's why you cherry pick.

We all choose what we believe to be true. Believing in magically inerrant holy books doesn't change that fact, because you're still choosing to believe in them.

You don't accept scriptural authority.

Nope. I believe what works, until I find something that works better.

Do you want me to consult the Greek? I can consult the Greek if that's what you want.

You can consult Shakespeare if you want to. It's all the same to me. The truth can be found in fiction as easily as it can be found in facts. And some truth and untruth can be found in all forms of literature.

 

[ebenz47037]

Why? Paying a tax isn't explicitly denying faith in Christ. I think it's possible, but it would depend on why you're doing it.

It's taking your faith off of Christ and putting it on you paying the tax, though.

 

[Traditio]

IB]I have an excellent reason to believe in Christ; and that is that doing so works![/B] But believing in Christ doesn't mean I have to accept every word some religionist wrote back in the middle ages. Or some religionist before him wrote in a letter to someone. Or what some 'believer' in Jesus' own time thought he said or meant. The truth stands on it's own. It doesn't need magically inerrant holy books to verify it. We can simply put the concept to the test, and see if it works.

That's not a legitimate reason to believe in anything. That's not evidence. Tell that to doctors of history, and you'll deserve to get laughed out of the room.

The basis is called reality. The truth, after all, is what is.

Once again, that's not evidence. "Why do you believe x?" "Because x is true." That's not an argument. You're just restating your belief.

According to the story, it was Jesus that introduced mankind to a whole new way of understanding God. An 'internalized' way. A humanized way. And I care about that a great deal, because I believe in this new way of understanding "God", as it has saved my life, and my sanity.

1. Factually speaking, you're just wrong.
2. Your personal relationship to what you think is true has absolutely no bearing on the truth of that thing. I don't care if believing in Santa Claus (insofar as the America mythos presents him) saved your life, your sanity, etc. That doesn't make your delusion anything other than a very useful delusion.

We all choose what we believe to be true. Believing in magically inerrant holy books doesn't change that fact, because you're still choosing to believe in them.

You should believe or not believe in something based on a preponderance of objective evidence. You have none.

Nope. I believe what works, until I find something that works better. You can consult Shakespeare if you want to. It's all the same to me. The truth can be found in fiction as easily as it can be found in facts. And some truth and untruth can be found in all forms of literature.

Then your point about medieval translations is ultimately irrelevent.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That isn't exactly how I meant the question, but that is a different way to look at it. I was asking from the angle of....is paying a tax a form of denying Christ. But giving material support to a terrorist group is certainly another dilemma. And comparing it to what the US gov't does brings in the question of where the line is.

Yeah, I don't push the "render unto Caesar" card like other people do (I think that's a highly abused passage) but I don't think you can really argue that you're denying Christ by forking over money to ISIS or any other illegitimate government.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That isn't exactly how I meant the question, but that is a different way to look at it. I was asking from the angle of....is paying a tax a form of denying Christ. But giving material support to a terrorist group is certainly another dilemma. And comparing it to what the US gov't does brings in the question of where the line is.

I might be able to be convinced that for a church to accept being taxed (ever, for any reason) could qualify as submitting to erastianism (and therefore wrong.) I know some solid covenanters who take that position. I'm not 100% either way.

 

[OCTOBER23]

Would you pay a tax to ISIS to keep your life ?

Do you mean life or wife ???????

 

[PureX]

That's not a legitimate reason to believe in anything. That's not evidence. Tell that to doctors of history, and you'll deserve to get laughed out of the room.

There is no objective evidence one way or another. So all we have to make the determination of subjective experience. Which is a perfectly reasonable method of determining what to believe, barring objective evidence.

Also, we humans are capable of holding more than one idea at a time. (At least I am.) So I can remain aware that I simply don't know if God exists, while choosing to believe that a God of my understanding does exist. Especially when doing so works for me.

And I don't really care what the "doctors of history" think is laughable. Why would I?

Once again, that's not evidence. "Why do you believe x?" "Because x is true." That's not an argument. You're just restating your belief.

I believe "X" because believing "X" works, and there is no evidence to believe otherwise. It's perfectly reasonable.

1. Factually speaking, you're just wrong.

What facts? There are no objective facts about Jesus. We can't even be certain he existed.

2. Your personal relationship to what you think is true has absolutely no bearing on the truth of that thing.

I agree. But that's the way it is for all of us regarding Jesus' story.

I don't care if believing in Santa Claus (insofar as the America mythos presents him) saved your life, your sanity, etc. That doesn't make your delusion anything other than a very useful delusion.

You can't prove it's a "delusion", and I can prove my beliefs saved me. And my life is worth saving. So I think it's you who is looking rather silly. Not me.

You should believe or not believe in something based on a preponderance of objective evidence. You have none.

There is none to be had. So it becomes a matter of faith. And faith works, if you apply it correctly. You should try it sometime. As far as I can tell, all you have is a pretense base on willful ignorance. You ignore the fact that you have no objective evidence, and then pretend that your subjective opinions are "facts", and use that to justify your beliefs. What a silly pretense! Why not just accept that you don't know, and choose to believe based on faith, and on the positive experience that results?

Then your point about medieval translations is ultimately irrelevent.

Well, of course you would have to come to that conclusion, so you can ignore it. That's the problem with basing you beliefs on pretense; you have to find a way to ignore anything that doesn't support your pretense of factuality.