Me either. I tend to have fairly orthodox beliefs. That's why I set out a few commentaries on the point in addition to my own exegesis and argument.
Sorry, no. Rome was a dictatorship and people were subjugated. ONLY Romans were exempt from conqueror privilege. Some of this history may have been carried in your law classes, but a good deal of it is behind my Bible degree.
More like a turn of the century British citzen, and certainly not a government by the people and for the people.
According to scripture, Jesus and His disciples were accused of not paying their taxes. It required a supernatural response to do so. This SHOULD tell you something: 1) the money owed was not on hand 2) it took supernatural means to pay it. You can try and argue with me all you like, but you need to do some more reading on this, imho.
No. He didn't. He said to render what was already theirs back to them. A brief survey of Israel in captivity as well as Israel asking for a king shows that the 'consequences' would be taxation. Before? :nono: The tithe is represented differently than blood sacrifices and the consequences are loss of blessing, rather. Taxation was the warning of having any other king but God 1 Samuel 8:10-22
Been done in my state.
It seems to me, that such is more Democratic than Republican in such expression. I conversely believe no one particular man should have authority BUT that which we equally agree and esteem as an emissary for the collective whole of us.
Not the same. Caesar was a dictator and owned his own coin and the countries that he and Roman predecessors had conquered. "To the victor, the spoils." One reason the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, was specifically because He was accused of being a usurper of Rome as "King."
:nono: Not exactly. I do realize that we cooperate to accomplish things and that taxes are part of that process BUT it is NOT taxes TO the government but taxes on behalf of projects and services. There is no reason for the United States Government to exist other than to serve. Take service away and the job is simply authoritarian. You seem, to me, to have a LOT of democratic notions to your law practice and understanding and by that, I'm meaning political (big government, government in control). Libertarian and Republican are different ideas that are viable and work in our government and Constitution, and even law practice, again, imho. To me, it just seems you are the spokesman for the Democrat in this particular instance, than actually representing all of American life, politics, and law.
Matthew 17:25-27
Not like you are thinking. We tend to import and export "Our" experiences, laws, and understanding into biblical laws and understanding. The 'tax' wasn't really there. There was a need to support priests and then the priests took care of the poor. There was an encouragement to personally look after the poor as well, by not over harvesting but allowing poor to glean the left-overs. Such was never a 'tax' like you are thinking of, nor was there a clear and decisive way to make one pay. In these, there was no $$$ being talked about.
There's just no biblical distinction between governments and the obligation Lon. Jesus was certainly aware of the Roman form when he responded.
To me that sort of statement is just indicative of the right wing bias that almost always expresses itself in those terms, but the form of government remains immaterial to the point, Lon.
True, these tend to be the less orthodox grasps of scripture. On this particular, I simply have to call into question that which is an obvious wrong equation. There is no way Rome and U.S. taxes can be equitably valued tit for tat. It just cannot happen, thus I believe 'unorthodox' is often better formed orthodoxy, when it truly is willing to wrestle with what is there and what is obviously not there. Fear mongering is absolutely the worst excuse for bleeding a tithe I've ever seen (Paul was a tent-maker when funds weren't available, by example AND orthodoxy).
I was in a pretty intense debate with one of these gentlemen (my convention at the time). While I appreciate pastors echoing these, I know need drives exegesis at times. I cannot serve two masters. I worked VERY hard to make a wage as an associate pastor. Further, because it was my privilege to serve, I had no qualms when the congregation was bleeding dry. You simply don't tithe tax a people that are in debt in an greatly indebted blue-collar town. The short of the matter is I disagree with the article on several fronts and for important biblical reasons and principles (see my post just above, I truly believe some pastors, even in the SBC, are missing the point.
:nono: Not when you recognize one side and THEN the other as well. When that happens you know you are vetted. I realize I'm in there too, I'm just trying to say I think you are every bit as wet as I am when it comes to politics over such matters. I'm not opposed to taxes, btw. Along with others, I hate misappropriated or frivolous spending and believe Government does need to tell us exactly what they are doing with our collective monies.
Well, maybe you DO realize we are both all wet :cheers:
I think thinking is a sign of a thinking person and orthodoxy tends to be the work of a lot of those over a great deal of time when it comes to scripture...so I read, come to my best understanding and look to church elders and commentaries to check myself. The problem with going it alone and ascribing our thinking to out of the box insight is that without an external check mistakes or a want of context can become a singular sort of orthodoxy and it's own contextual box, with no likely way out.
Even so, the government is not to be part of it. Yet our government is not only part of it, but is the main entity that takes care of it.
The point again was 'taxes' vs giving. I don't neglect the poor but again, how would you know? God knows, but how would you or I know if someone saw someone who was poor and in need? [/QUOTE]
:think:
Inductive or deductive on these?
1) The Law was talking about sharing crops and clothes, not money. 2) If we were Jews today, we might need to think about cash, but we need to accurately figure out what is applied to Christians. 3) It seems, to me, we are a little off the OP, but I am interested in where you are headed and how it might more directly apply. For me, this part of the conversation was to contest exactly how taxes are applied to a people and my analysis leads me to believe that scriptures for Christians talk about giving and not about tithing. There would have been no need for Paul to ever be a tent-maker if tithing was directly applied to the church. Btw, I'd think God can do whatever He wants with 10%. I'm not really against that, but against thing out of balance. The scriptures about giving first to the church, before taking care of your family, for instance, is important to my understanding. I've had pastors try to tell me "No! That's over and above your tithe!" Seems almost identical to what the Pharisees contested and so I began really questioning what was biblical and what was pharisaical at the time. Mark 7:9-13 1 Timothy 5:8