Would Jesus Be a Democrat or a Republican?

[Sparkey]

I really think he (Jesus) would be part of a monarcy --ie, the king.

 

[Hitch]

Untrue, of course.

More empty words, if you have this certain support where did you leave it ?

I suggest that the Biblically literate are fully aware of the fact that the Bible is not an exhaustive lists of "do's" and "don'ts".

LOL Cute example of a lefty slight, right on cue

We had the same issue in the smoking thread. When faced with a Biblical argument against smoking that was not grounded in a single text, many posters, perhaps yourself included, simply ignored that argument.

Very telling indeed.

There is no single "verse" that says that charity is the function of government.

But nevertheless, the Scriptures do strongly support this:

1. Jesus is Lord of all - and that includes the very governmental institutions through which we run our world.

And too bad for you charity in scripture is always free and individual. You lose

2. The Kingdom of God has a clear principle - the rich should give to the poor;

Give? You lose again There is a vast difference between gicing and confication '{quote]

3. Therefore, it is quite clear that King Jesus wants us to implement governments that apply this principle.[/quote] LOL If that were clear you would be able to support it from scripture, you cant.

You would push Jesus and His values out of the realm of government with your position.

LOL It is disgusting when believers invoke the name of Jesus to justify theft. Just as it is idiotic to pretend the scriptures dont support private property.

I am, of course, doing no such thing.

Oh? You brought up universial health care and when you couildnt support stealing money to pay for it you ran and hid behind phantom anarchy.

 

[Drew]

* Despite Drew's silliness and its implications, there is a great deal of space between the socialist state he seems to promote and anarchy, which I believe was brought up just to cloud the issue.

Its unfortunate that part of your style of "debate" is to engage in all manner of cheap shots / wise-cracks that really do not contribute the collective understanding of the body of Christ.

You have, of course, zero evidence at all to support this belief of yours that I am trying to "cloud the issue".

 

[Sparkey]

The issue "Dem or Rep" violates what we know as true. Jesus is not subject to government(s). He is king.

 

[Hitch]

Its unfortunate that part of your style of "debate" is to engage in all manner of cheap shots / wise-cracks that really do not contribute the collective understanding of the body of Christ.

You have, of course, zero evidence at all to support this belief of yours that I am trying to "cloud the issue".

LOL Your cry of anarchy was cheap shot Drew. And it exposed more of your self-righteous nature.

I asked you for scriptural support and when you couldnt produce any you first played the old dog eared anarchy card and when that failed you slid into a personal attack. :biglol

Lets see; no evidence +change the subject+personal attacks = cloud the issue.

Who is your Messiah really Drew? Christ or the omni-benevolent government?

 

[Pard]

Lemme take a crack at this...

1. Jesus is Lord of all - and that includes the very governmental institutions through which we run our world.

2. The Kingdom of God has a clear principle - the rich should give to the poor;

3. Therefore, it is quite clear that King Jesus wants us to implement governments that apply this principle.

1. Got no problem with that... although I do wish the government was a bit more aware of this.

2. I agree, but let's drop the whole "rich" and "poor" thing, shall we? It's a subjective term. Who is "rich"? Am I "rich" or am I "poor"? How is wealth measured?

...You see why I am dropping those two terms? It's just subjective and it will only serve to muddy the water, and this thread seems muddy enough already! Needless to say, those who have should clearly, per the Bible, be giving to those who have-not.

3. And here is where the issue arises! There is a H-U-G-E difference between giving of your own volition and "giving" as a function of having the government take your money and then distribute it to those who it deems worthy.

When the government is involved there is never charity to be had!

Charity:

generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless

Paying taxes is not a "generous action". Paying taxes is an obligation that you cannot ignore, unless you wish to see your life behind a series of vertical bars for a number of years.

So your third statement is a contradiction of itself. One cannot give when it is taken. Furthermore, when you are taxed does it say where your money is going?

...

No.

When you are taxed you are taxed and that is that. You don't know where your money will end up.

Do you feel all warm in fuzzy inside when you pay your taxes because you know that your money is going to benefit those in need of it? Probably not, though if you do say you do I won't hold that lie against you...

Chances are your tax dollars will never reach the needy. They will go to the "needy". The people on the roll, the guys who are enjoying the life of not working but still owning cable TV, five flat screens, three Xboxs, two Playstations, one Wii, and a BMW.

Do you feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that your "charitable giving", through the means of being taxed, is going to help the people who are simple riding the entitlement system for all they have?

And don't say it doesn't happen. I had a friend who does this. His father and mother don't work a lick but they own a nice house. They collect a welfare check in the mail every two weeks and they use that to buy their children all the junk in the world. Each of their five kids have their very own flat screen HDTV, I'd say about 60" or so. It makes me sick, which is why I don't hang out with him anymore.

 

[Pard]

As a politically-minded person I feel I need to point out that the umbrella term "socialism" and the "government"-type known as "anarchy" are polar opposites.

A socialist state has nearly complete government control (only being out done by monarchies). An anarchist state is virtually no government control.

 

[Drew]

Amid all the cacophany of non-sequitirs and cheap shots, I suggest the following points have remained fundamentally unaddressed:

1. Jesus is a real king, and He is the king of all, not just the inner lives of individuals. This means that He is the "head" of, yes, all governments.

2. We the church are tasked with implementing this Kingdom. This means we are to do things like advocate for ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay, get adequate health care. This is Christianity actually at work in the world - not the "one foot in the church, the other foot in the world and its 'survival of the fittest' way of running things" approach. And how do we ensure that people get adequate health care? - we invite the rest of the society to join us and ask that they agree that tax dollars will be used to achieve this. And then those people vote. Again, despite the sloganeering you will read in this thread, it remains the case that people volunteer to be taxed. No one is forcing you to vote for taxation - feel free to vote for a party that does not tax and see how that works out.

 

[Drew]

LOL Your cry of anarchy was cheap shot Drew. And it exposed more of your self-righteous nature.

I asked you for scriptural support and when you couldnt produce any you first played the old dog eared anarchy card and when that failed you slid into a personal attack. :biglol

You are rigging the game, like many did in the smoker's thread - insisting that if there is not a "verse" that commands "thou shalt not smoke", we can safely conclude that smoking is not sin.

And, of course, this was a maneuver to avoid the force of my argument based on Biblical principles and the content of the narrative, that smoking was indeed sin.

And you are doing it again - insisting on one specific category of evidence - the tired, overly-simplistic "there has gotta be a single verse or I won't believe it" category.

Well, that is not how the Bible works. We have a king named Jesus, and He is Lord of all, not just your "private life". This means that we, the church, are called to seek for the adoption of His principles in all spheres of the world, including that of government.

 

[Hitch]

You are rigging the game, like many did in the smoker's thread - insisting that if there is not a "verse" that commands "thou shalt not smoke", we can safely conclude that smoking is not sin.

Actually I quoted God Almighty when He said dont steal

And, of course, this was a maneuver to avoid the force of my argument based on Biblical principles and the content of the narrative, that smoking was indeed sin.

And you are doing it again - insisting on one specific category of evidence - the tired, overly-simplistic "there has gotta be a single verse or I won't believe it" category.

So poor Drew cant find any support in the entire canon of scripture, but the bible says God mad the rich and the poor, the onus in upon you to show us where you are supposed to show greater wisdom than god and even things out to way you like . Go ahead

Well, that is not how the Bible works. We have a king named Jesus, and He is Lord of all, not just your "private life". This means that we, the church, are called to seek for the adoption of His principles in all spheres of the world, including that of government.

Whats the matter Drew cant you come up with anything to counter THOU SHALT NOT STEAL ?

 

[Hitch]

Amid all the cacophany of non-sequitirs and cheap shots, I suggest the following points have remained fundamentally unaddressed:

1. Jesus is a real king, and He is the king of all, not just the inner lives of individuals. This means that He is the "head" of, yes, all governments.

2. We the church are tasked with implementing this Kingdom. This means we are to do things like advocate for ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay, get adequate health care. This is Christianity actually at work in the world - not the "one foot in the church, the other foot in the world and its 'survival of the fittest' way of running things" approach. And how do we ensure that people get adequate health care? - we invite the rest of the society to join us and ask that they agree that tax dollars will be used to achieve this. And then those people vote. Again, despite the sloganeering you will read in this thread, it remains the case that people volunteer to be taxed. No one is forcing you to vote for taxation - feel free to vote for a party that does not tax and see how that works out.

I know how that works out. They send a man with a gun to your house and he takes the money by force.

Did Jesus take money by force from anyone?


Drew its obvious your still trying with the anarchy bit, ho hum

 

[Drew]

I have no time for the bickering.

I will later make a detailed argument about the "taxation" as "not stealing" thing.

I will ignore all posts that contain rude material in them.

If any poster has an argument to make, and does not engage in personal attacks, then and only then will I respond.

So feel free to fulfill whatever psychological need drives you to be provocative and rude. However, I will only address posts that meet a certain level of decorum.

 

[Hitch]

I have no time for the bickering.

I will later make a detailed argument about the "taxation" as "not stealing" thing.

I will ignore all posts that contain rude material in them.

If any poster has an argument to make, and does not engage in personal attacks, then and only then will I respond.

So feel free to fulfill whatever psychological need drives you to be provocative and rude. However, I will only address posts that meet a certain level of decorum.

Good night Mr Kettle dont stub your toe running away.

 

[Pard]

So, he just completely ignored my post, huh?

I kind of figured he would.

And Drew, I never said taxation was stealing, it is a necessary evil. But taxation isn't, and never will be, "generous action".

 

[Hitch]

<sup id="en-KJV-25393" class="versenum">29</sup>But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
<sup id="en-KJV-25394" class="versenum">30</sup>And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
<sup id="en-KJV-25395" class="versenum">31</sup>And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
<sup id="en-KJV-25396" class="versenum">32</sup>And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
<sup id="en-KJV-25397" class="versenum">33</sup>But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
<sup id="en-KJV-25398" class="versenum">34</sup>And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
<sup id="en-KJV-25399" class="versenum">35</sup>And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
<sup id="en-KJV-25400" class="versenum">36</sup>Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

Who or what is represented by the Samaritan ?

Who or what paid for the care of the injured?

 

[Drew]

So, he just completely ignored my post, huh?

I kind of figured he would.

This is the kind of rude post I that I generally will not be answering - you imply that I am in the business of ignoring other people's arguments.

Actually, there are many others who play that game, but not me.

If your post contains anything more than name-calling, and if I recall your post was generally quite reasonable, I will deal with it in due course. Just because I did not answer your post right away doesn't mean I am ignoring it.

But, and this goes for everyone - be rude and you will be ignored by me. And feel free to ingore me, if you like.

 

[Pard]

I rather enjoy this perceived attitude you have about you. It's like you think that by answering someone's post it should be received as some sort of honor. And although I'd like to see how you will spin some oddity into the defense of your beloved entitlement programs, I honestly couldn't care less if you replied to my initial post or not. I consider it a post for the betterment of others and not one in response to you.

Now I am getting off topic.

I am drawing a blank on the name of the story, but it seems to me the bit about that couple who was killed for lying about how much they gave to the poor would come in handy as a scriptural reference. God didn't kill them because they didn't give enough or any or what have you. No He killed them for being liars. Had they told the truth, that they didn't give what they said, they'd have lived. Seems to me that they had a choice in giving, where as government entitlement programs don't give you a choice at all.

And of course, charity MUST be a choice, otherwise it isn't charity...

 

[Drew]

I rather enjoy this perceived attitude you have about you. It's like you think that by answering someone's post it should be received as some sort of honor.

Not at all. I have just decided that I want to only participate in civil debate. If people cannot be polite, I choose not to interact with them. And, of course, I will try to hold myself to the same standard. I am not asking to be treated as if I am worthy of honour.

I am only saying I will not discuss matters with posters who are rude. That hardly seems unreasonable.

I am drawing a blank on the name of the story, but it seems to me the bit about that couple who was killed for lying about how much they gave to the poor would come in handy as a scriptural reference. God didn't kill them because they didn't give enough or any or what have you. No He killed them for being liars. Had they told the truth, that they didn't give what they said, they'd have lived. Seems to me that they had a choice in giving, where as government entitlement programs don't give you a choice at all.

And of course, charity MUST be a choice, otherwise it isn't charity...

I believe there is a flaw in your argument. You appear to be arguing thus:

1. A and B gave a certain amount X to the poor;
2. A and B then lied to others about the amount X;
3. God killed them for lying, not being uncharitable;
4. Therefore God was not unhappy about the amount they gave.

This is not correct - you have no grounds for knowing that God was happy about the amount they gave. Perhaps God was more upset at the lying than he was at the low amount X, but this does not mean that He (God) was satisfied with the amount X.

You are reasoning like this:

1. Fred murdered someone;
2. Fred also cheated on his taxes;
3. Fred was put to death for the crime of murder, not cheating on taxes;
4. Therefore, the government does not consider that Fred's cheating on his taxes was a crime.

This is an invalid argument.

 

[Oats]

I don't know whether or not he would be a Liberal or Conservative, but I know he agreed with paying taxes

The Temple Tax

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23725">24</sup> After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?†<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23726">25</sup> “Yes, he does,†he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?†he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?â€
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23727">26</sup> “From others,†Peter answered.
“Then the children are exempt,†Jesus said to him. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23728">27</sup> “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.†- Matthew 17:24-27


--------
Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23888">15</sup> Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23889">16</sup> They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,†they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23890">17</sup> Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;#fen-NIV-23890a&quot; title=&quot;See footnote a&quot;>a</a>]">[a]</sup> to Caesar or not?†<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23891">18</sup> But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23892">19</sup> Show me the coin used for paying the tax.†They brought him a denarius, <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23893">20</sup> and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?â€
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23894">21</sup> “Caesar’s,†they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.â€
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-23895">22</sup> When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

 

[Pard]

You're right Oats. Paying taxes is something that ought to be done. It is a crime to do otherwise. But paying taxes should never be seen as a substitute or even the same as charity.

One is done from the heart, the other is done from obligation.

Charity is the utmost form of love. It is the willing gift of X to someone who is sorely lacking X. Charitable donations take all forms, and I think some people are forgetting this.

Money is but a single form of donation. In fact, I'd suggest that money is the lowest type of donation that one can give. What does the giving of money really do? Not much. Money is easy to spend and giving it is easy to do.

Now let's talk about real forms of donation. Food. Perhaps not as hard to give as others, but food is a thing we need.

How about time? Time, unlike money, cannot be returned. It is a thing that can never be made back. If I give a $100 away, I can make $100 back easily enough. But if I give 10 hours of time I will never see those ten hours again. To me that is real charity, and that is the thing that the government will never ever be able to give.

EDIT

Upon thinking about it I must thank you, Oats.

By posting those passages of scripture we can clearly see that taxation is a separate thing from charity! The government can only tax, and thus they can never ever be the facilitator of charity!