Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ah yes, and I'm sure that Biccat would say that one of the Republican candidates would be an acceptable alternative, amirite?

Melissia wrote:Ah yes, and I'm sure that Biccat would say that one of the Republican candidates would be an acceptable alternative, amirite?

What would Jesus say?

Wow! WOW! Look at all the lights! OMG you have RUNNING WATER!?!?!!!

CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.

I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.

Actually he asked of those who are rich to sell all of their possessions and give everything they have to charity, because the treasures in the mortal life are naught and the mortal life can end any time soon, while the treasures in heaven can never be stolen.

And then he said this:

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Not that prosperity theology ever pays attention to things like this.

The key is GIVE to charity, not have taken from you and passed out as the Gov't pleased.

An individual GIVING freely to the charity of his/her choice is a great thing. It was the individual giving freely that was to help him/her earn a place in heaven, not the amount of taxes they paid.

CptJake wrote:The key is GIVE to charity, not have taken from you and passed out as the Gov't pleased.

An individual GIVING freely to the charity of his/her choice is a great thing. It was the individual giving freely that was to help him/her earn a place in heaven, not the amount of taxes they paid.

If you're using Jesus' teachings as a basis, then no rich person will get in to heaven that does not give EVERYTHING that they have to charity.

So the argument is rather moot, because it doesn't really apply to people who give a paltry amount to charity, like most of those whom are rich do (and even then only do so to lessen their tax burden). The argument that they'd give more if there was no taxes is ludicrous, but meh, that's all beside the point.

The government must be concerned with the real world, the physical world as it actually is. It's the preacher's job to be concerned with the spiritual health of other people, not the government, which must solve real-world problems with the tools that it has. Taxation is one of those tools, and poverty is one of those problems.

Melissia wrote:If you're using Jesus' teachings as a basis, then no rich person will get in to heaven that does not give EVERYTHING that they have to charity.

Which isn't actually a true statement. You're on a roll with these.

Melissia wrote:Ah yes, and I'm sure that Biccat would say that one of the Republican candidates would be an acceptable alternative, amirite?

Acceptable in what manner?

I don't think that appeals to religion are the evil that others seem to think they are.* So I don't have a problem with a candidate using religion to justify their political decisions. I was posting this because I thought it would be good red meat for the Christian bashers here to go off on Obama. Funny how they're not. And by funny, I mean totally not surprising.

@Kilkrazy: You have a habit of ignoring responses. Plus, I avoid discussing things with MODs because they have an unfair advantage in the discussion.

* That's an awkward sentence.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.

I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.

Actually he asked of those who are rich to sell all of their possessions and give everything they have to charity, because the treasures in the mortal life are naught and the mortal life can end any time soon, while the treasures in heaven can never be stolen.

And then he said this:

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Not that prosperity theology ever pays attention to things like this.

And nothing was ever said about giving everything to the government. Government was not viewed positively at the time. Something about Romans and Armageddon and all that.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you're using Jesus' teachings as a basis, then no rich person will get in to heaven that does not give EVERYTHING that they have to charity.

Which isn't actually a true statement. You're on a roll with these.

Unlike you, I gave a quote.

biccat wrote:Acceptable in what manner?

I don't think that appeals to religion are the evil that others seem to think they are.* So I don't have a problem with a candidate using religion to justify their political decisions. I was posting this because I thought it would be good red meat for the Christian bashers here to go off on Obama. Funny how they're not. And by funny, I mean totally not surprising.

Ah yes, that's right. You would insult me by calling me a "Christian Basher" because you can't come to terms with what I actually have said and instead must label me as something simpler that you actually are willing to bother trying to comprehend.

Instead of, you know, reading, which seems to be far too much work for you.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you're using Jesus' teachings as a basis, then no rich person will get in to heaven that does not give EVERYTHING that they have to charity.

Which isn't actually a true statement. You're on a roll with these.

Unlike you, I gave a quote.

Actually you edited that in after I had quoted your post.

On a roll, and all that.

You can read your quote in its full context here, including this gem:

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

But I'm no expert in theology. You should talk to a priest if you have questions about theology.

Melissia wrote:Ah yes, that's right. You would insult me by calling me a "Christian Basher".

Why do you assume I was talking about you? Why do you assume that calling people "Christian bashers" is insulting, rather than descriptive?

And, on a more interesting note, how is that term not descriptive of you?

biccat wrote:Actually you edited that in after I had quoted your post.

It was in there from the start. My edit didn't add that in.

biccat wrote:Why do you assume I was talking about you?

Because I am not stupid, and you should stop being so disingenuous, noone believes you. You have tried to force that label upon me in the past, however ill fitting it has always been.

I am against extremists. Not Christians. I have argued against Atheist extremists, I have decried Muslim extremists, and yes, I have denounced Christian extremists. I have always done this, but you have refused to accept this, and you will likely continue to do so instead of bothering to read anything that's actually been said because you're just looking to insult me.

Melissia wrote:Because I am not stupid, and you should stop being so disingenuous, noone believes you. You have tried to force that label upon me in the past, however ill fitting it has always been.

I've been ignoring your posts (in the OT at least, I do blame you for getting me hooked on GalCiv2) for quite a while. I was actually specifically referring to other posters.

I will let others take from your "Becauase I am not stupid" assertion what they will based on this new information.

Melissia wrote:I am against extremists. Not Christians. I have argued against Atheist extremists, I have decried Muslim extremists, and yes, I have denounced Christian extremists. I have always done this, but you have refused to accept this, and you will likely continue to do so instead of bothering to read anything that's actually been said because you're just looking to insult me.

Yep, my prediction was right.

biccat wrote:I don't think that appeals to religion are the evil that others seem to think they are.* So I don't have a problem with a candidate using religion to justify their political decisions. I was posting this because I thought it would be good red meat for the Christian bashers here to go off on Obama. Funny how they're not. And by funny, I mean totally not surprising.

I wouldn't call myself a Christian basher, as I'm not particularly picky about sects, but I'd say the reason I haven't gone off on him to your satisfaction is that I don't find pandering quite as frightening as genuine belief.

Is it a stupid argument, that he made? Of course it is. They all are, when that's the basis.

Happy?

Melissia wrote:

Melissia wrote:I am against extremists. Not Christians. I have argued against Atheist extremists, I have decried Muslim extremists, and yes, I have denounced Christian extremists. I have always done this, but you have refused to accept this, and you will likely continue to do so instead of bothering to read anything that's actually been said because you're just looking to insult me.

Yep, my prediction was right.

"Stop insulting me!"
"Why do you think I was insulting you?"
"Because I'm not stupid"
"I wasn't even talking about you."
"See, I was right!"

Indeed.

biccat wrote:[snip]

Biccat, you've called me a "Christian basher" before, and I posted in this thread before you started throwing around the term "Christian basher". I can put two and two together. If you honestly weren't intending to, that would be a surprise to me, because you certainly never held back in calling me that in the past.

CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.

I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.

Good god man, have you never read the Bible? Matthew 21 is a pretty basic passage that even non-Christians know that directly says it is ok to pay taxes. Jesus never attacked any Romans, even when they came to take him to the cross, but threw private business out of the temples. He taught friendship and understanding between the Hebrews and the Romans, as well as all people really.

I think I was the one who called you Christian basher FYI.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:[snip]

Biccat, you've called me a "Christian basher" before, and I posted in this thread before you started throwing around the term "Christian basher". I can put two and two together. If you honestly weren't intending to, that would be a surprise to me, because you certainly never held back in calling me that in the past.

See if this works...

Ooh, recursivity!

biccat wrote:[snip]

Yes, because everything is always in the exact same wording, amirite?

Let's take it to PMs before the mods take umbrage (if it's not too late already).

Also, more on topic:

Ahtman wrote:Good god man, have you never read the Bible? Matthew 21 is a pretty basic passage that even non-Christians know that directly says it is ok to pay taxes. Jesus never attacked any Romans, even when they came to take him to the cross, but threw private business out of the temples. He taught friendship and understanding between the Hebrews and the Romans, as well as all people really.

Shh, you'll offend the prosperity preachers!

Ahtman wrote:

CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.

I would be willing to bet he was advocating individuals searching their hearts and deciding to help others because it was a good thing vice because some tax collector backed by a century of sword armed troopers forced you to give and then parsed out the money as they saw fit.

Good god man, have you never read the Bible? Matthew 21 is a pretty basic passage that even non-Christians know that directly says it is ok to pay taxes. Jesus never attacked any Romans, even when they came to take him to the cross, but threw private business out of the temples. He taught friendship and understanding between the Hebrews and the Romans, as well as all people really.

Actually, I have read the bible. It is interesting to note that tax collectors are all considered sinners and some give up thier evil ways to follow Jesus, and that he encourages them to do so, which is really getting them to give up support to Rome. The fact he accepts any into his group is seen by the population he preaches to as radical. This is one of the reasons he was not as widely accepted as some would have liked. Many of the Jews were looking for a warrior to lead a violent rebellion against Rome, Jesus refused to be that man.

In the verse you mention, yep,'give to Ceasar that which he is due' or words to that effect. Doesn't negate a single thing I have said. Note he doesn't say gie up all your belongings to the gov't, he says pay your taxes. He doesn't think Gov't is the answer to feeding the poor, he teaches individuals are.

biccat wrote:
I just don't understand how someone could be so wrapped up in another country's politics, to the point that they're willing to throw away any intellectual honesty to defend the politician they favor.

Coffee actually came out of my nose! I am not sure if you said that with the intention of irony, I will pretend yes.

CptJake wrote:I'm pretty sure Jesus would not have been a big fan of granting the Romans more power and authority to collect taxes which then filtered through Rome's bureaucracy could have been used to care for the poor and needy.

Actually he did speak of taxes saying "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars". As an atheist I get to "talk" about religion LOTS. In fact, it turns out I know more about religion than your average christian!

Well I was ninja'd, I can read your response above Cpt. Jake.

Er no, everyone knows that phrase.

Pay your taxes is meant what it is. Let the worldly ruler deal with worldly items, but God tends to the important things.

There's nothing in the Bible about government stealing money from one person to pay another person as a good thing or even a bad thing. Its what YOU do.

J-Roc77 wrote:Coffee actually came out of my nose! I am not sure if you said that with the intention of irony, I will pretend yes.

Presumably you're trying to accuse me of hypocracy (and doing a poor job of it).

What foreign government have I expressed concern about? You do realize sebster is Australian, right? What the hell do aussies care about US politics?

biccat wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:Coffee actually came out of my nose! I am not sure if you said that with the intention of irony, I will pretend yes.

Presumably you're trying to accuse me of hypocracy (and doing a poor job of it).

He isn't accusing you of hypocrisy, he is just recognizing it when he sees it. Much like seeing an airplane flying across the sky isn't accusing a plane of being a plane, but recognizing a thing for what it is.

biccat wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:Coffee actually came out of my nose! I am not sure if you said that with the intention of irony, I will pretend yes.

Presumably you're trying to accuse me of hypocracy (and doing a poor job of it).

What foreign government have I expressed concern about? You do realize sebster is Australian, right? What the hell do aussies care about US politics?

Well as the font of all things Tex Mex, the entire world is concerned when there is a potential shortage....

Ahtman wrote:He isn't accusing you of hypocrisy, he is just recognizing it when he sees it. Much like seeing an airplane flying across the sky isn't accusing a plane of being a plane, but recognizing a thing for what it is.

Since you seem to know the mind of the poster I quoted so well, perhaps you could answer my question?

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:He isn't accusing you of hypocrisy, he is just recognizing it when he sees it. Much like seeing an airplane flying across the sky isn't accusing a plane of being a plane, but recognizing a thing for what it is.

Since you seem to know the mind of the poster I quoted so well, perhaps you could answer my question?

Why do people outside of a country care about the political events of other countries? I imagine that would depend on the individual, but I don't think it is an uncommon occurrence. We could always ask Vietnam, Panama, Korea, Japan, Iraq, or Liberia if it might be noteworthy to know what is going on in other country's politics. I think we might even have an entire governmental department devoted to Foreign Affairs, as well as private industry. So I suppose the question you should ask is "why do we have an interest in the politics and events in other countries". If you answer that, I imagine you will also answer why others look at the US. Of course with the US you have the added elements of obscene amounts of wealth, military power, and the constant application of both abroad.

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:He isn't accusing you of hypocrisy, he is just recognizing it when he sees it. Much like seeing an airplane flying across the sky isn't accusing a plane of being a plane, but recognizing a thing for what it is.

Since you seem to know the mind of the poster I quoted so well, perhaps you could answer my question?

Why do people outside of a country care about the political events of other countries? I imagine that would depend on the individual, but I don't think it is an uncommon occurrence. We could always ask Vietnam, Panama, Korea, Japan, Iraq, or Liberia if it might be notable to know what is going on in other countries politics. I think we might even have an entire governmental department devoted to Foreign Affairs, as well as private industry. So I suppose the question you should ask is "why do we have an interest in the politics and events in other countries". If you answer that, I imagine you will also answer why others look at the US. Of course with the US you have the added elements of obscene amounts of wealth, military power, and the constant application of both abroad.

So what you're saying is that you're just trolling and restating baseless accusations.

Cool.

biccat wrote:I've really appreciated the comments in this thread, mainly for the mental gymnastics and Republican bashing.

I love a good passive aggressive one liner.

I think you're just upset that a politician discovered a moral message in the bible that doesn't somehow come down to sex.

Polonius wrote:I think you're just upset that a politician discovered a moral message in the bible that doesn't somehow come down to sex.

Upset? The fact that one has the reading comprehension to discern messages beyond how to control our lives would be a welcome change.

As an aside, however, the President actually didn't "discover" a moral message in the Bible, in fact he "discovered" a quote he could misapply to try to make a point. Remember his "I am my brothers keeper" comment? Boy did he take that one out of context!