I recently received my monthly Church publication. The article I read was written Dr. RC Sproul - a brilliant mind indeed. Normally RC steers clear of controversy, but this time, I guess considering the state of affairs here in the USA, he couldn't resist weighing in on a hot topic.
To start off, he established the 8th Commandment. This Commandment is one of those that any civilized society would agree with. "You shall not steal." RC spoke about the obvious meaning of the Commandment... clearly one should not break into someone else's house and take their property. He subsequently went on to mention as an aside, that obviously it's not a sin to own stuff, since the Commandment makes it clear that it's acceptable to have property, and to expect that property not to be taken by someone else.
But it was the last paragraph he wrote, that prompted this thread. I'll just repeat it here and then I would like for folks to either agree, or, state why this line of reasoning is wrong.
"Some of the most sophisticated means of theft are codified in law by our lawmakers. Politicians routinely promise to raise taxes on one group of people to pay for services for another group of people. This creates tax rates that demand a higher percentage of income from some people than others, and it creates tax laws that are enormously complex and punish those who cannot hire accountants and lawyers to figure it all out. Scripture never explicitly sets an ideal tax percentage for the government (though elected officials are arrogant indeed to claim more than the 10 percent God allots for His church). Nevertheless, Scripture does not endorse different tax rates for different groups of people. Christians are to follow the laws in place and pay their taxes (Rom. 13:6-7), but, as they are able, they must not perpetuate legalized theft. Voting a tax rate on others that we do not vote on ourselves is the same thing as stealing from our neighbor."
I wholeheartedly endorse this message. With our President and Socialist-in-Chief in office, we are turning more and more Socialist every day. With resounding applause from his followers, Obama promises to make the wealthy in this country PAY for their success... and will ensure that their tax rates are jacked up, while everyone else is left alone. His followers shake their fists and say, "Yeah! Stick it to the rich!!!" during his speeches. Of course, little do they know that although the "rich" will pay higher taxes, WE the non-rich aren't going to see a single penny of it land in our pockets. It will go straight into the coffers of our irresponsible, inefficient, corrupt government who will sumarily spend the money on their own pet projects--which are mainly lining the pockets of special interest groups that promise to vote them back into office, and funding failed companies that donate to their cause (companies that after receiving their billions, disappear into bankruptcy with their CEO's laughing all the way to the bank).
Anyhoo... the bottom line is, RC is throwing down the gauntlet on this one... what he's saying is obvious.
Christians: Is he wrong? And if so, why?
Atheists/Skeptics are welcome to weigh in on this matter, but, I would prefer you keep your arguments in favor or not in favor, restricted to the legal precedent as far as the Commandment is concerned. Forget that you don't like Christian Commandments for a second, and just look at this as a legal brief. Legal briefs usually follow what attorneys call IRAC. A case is argued in that order: Issue - Rule - Argument - Closing
The issue is, "Is voting a higher tax for someone else that you don't vote for yourself acceptable?"
The rule is, "Thou shalt not steal."
The argument is, stealing doesn't necessarily mean directly taking something from someone else. Stealing can be performed indirectly by having someone else do it for you.
Etc.
So I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion on this legal matter as well, but I ask that the usual, generic, "Christians suck" rhetoric be left out of this one. Thanks in advance.
I think it's perfectly ok for an Atheist/Skeptic to say, "Yes, the argument is framed correctly, but I personally and morally don't agree with it."
Originally posted by sumydidHow about this earlier part of Romans 13?
Atheists/Skeptics are welcome to weigh in on this matter, but, I would prefer you keep your arguments in favor or not in favor, restricted to the legal precedent as far as the Commandment is concerned. Forget that you don't like Christian Commandments for a second, and just look at this as a legal brief. Legal briefs usually follow what attorneys call IRAC ...[text shortened]... e argument is framed correctly, but I personally and morally don't agree with it."
Romans 13 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Originally posted by sumydidI notice you left the word "rate" out of your encapsulation of 'the isue' and 'the rule'. Would you say a completely flat tax - i.e. everyone pays the same amount of money - like a set fee - is the most "moral" kind of tax?
The issue is, "Is voting a higher tax for someone else that you don't vote for yourself acceptable?"
The rule is, "Thou shalt not steal."
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sumydidisnt there a story somewhere in the bible where a rich man is bragging about how much he has donated to the church and jesus points out a poor guy who gave less money but it was a higher percentage of his income?
Atheists/Skeptics are welcome to weigh in on this matter, but, I would prefer you keep your arguments in favor or not in favor, restricted to the legal precedent as far as the Commandment is concerned. Forget that you don't like Christian Commandments for a second, and just look at this as a legal brief. Legal briefs usually follow what attorneys call IRAC ...[text shortened]... e argument is framed correctly, but I personally and morally don't agree with it."
on a side note, id also like to point out that obama is not a socialist.
Originally posted by sumydidevery time an american uses the term "socialist" as an insult, i laugh.
I recently received my monthly Church publication. The article I read was written Dr. RC Sproul - a brilliant mind indeed. Normally RC steers clear of controversy, but this time, I guess considering the state of affairs here in the USA, he couldn't resist weighing in on a hot topic.
To start off, he established the 8th Commandment. This Commandment is ...[text shortened]... ... what he's saying is obvious.
Christians: Is he wrong? And if so, why?
Originally posted by sumydidEveryone's got an angle.
I recently received my monthly Church publication. The article I read was written Dr. RC Sproul - a brilliant mind indeed. Normally RC steers clear of controversy, but this time, I guess considering the state of affairs here in the USA, he couldn't resist weighing in on a hot topic.
To start off, he established the 8th Commandment. This Commandment is ... what he's saying is obvious.
Christians: Is he wrong? And if so, why?
His is using the Bible to complain about paying his fair share of taxes.
Yes, he's wrong. Obviously.
Edit: Your deeper argument would be hysterically funny if it weren't so obviously a ploy. All these things you ascribe to "socialists" have been part and parcel of the conservatives in this country since Reagan.
Originally posted by FMFAbsolutely not.
I notice you left the word "rate" out of your encapsulation of 'the isue' and 'the rule'. Would you say a completely flat tax - i.e. everyone pays the same amount of money - like a set fee - is the most "moral" kind of tax?
We are charged with helping those with less than we have. Bitching about how much you should pay in tax, and actively working to lower your tax rate while increasing it for those who have less is sinful. Yes, sinful.
Originally posted by SuzianneWhich of the Ten Commandments do you reckon sumydid's opposition to progressive taxes contravenes?
We are charged with helping those with less than we have. Bitching about how much you should pay in tax, and actively working to lower your tax rate while increasing it for those who have less is sinful. Yes, sinful.
Originally posted by FMFHow about:
Which of the Ten Commandments do you reckon sumydid's opposition to progressive taxes contravenes?
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." -- Exodus 20:3
Remember also:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." -- Exodus 20:16
And while not a commandment, per se, what about:
"Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
But godliness with contentment is great gain.
For we brought nothing into [this] world, [and it is] certain we can carry nothing out.
And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." -- 1 Timothy 6:5-10
or:
"Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." -- 1 Timothy 6:17-19
Originally posted by stellspalfieOnly issue in a Believer's giving is 'motivation'. Familiar passage with the sentence, "God loves a cheerful giver",
isnt there a story somewhere in the bible where a rich man is bragging about how much he has donated to the church and jesus points out a poor guy who gave less money but it was a higher percentage of his income?
on a side note, id also like to point out that obama is not a socialist.
is correctly translated: "God loves (recognizes the genuine expression of worship in) a well motivated giver".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow's_mite
-
Originally posted by SuzianneRunning you down? I was being perfectly serious. You mention "sin". So I asked which of the Ten Commandments you reckon sumydid's opposition to progressive taxes contravenes? You are saying that his opposition goes against "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." and "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"? Seems you are being serious then.
If that's all you got, please move along.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThat's crap....
Only issue in a Believer's giving is 'motivation'. Familiar passage with the sentence, "God loves a cheerful giver",
is correctly translated: "God loves (recognizes the genuine expression of worship in) a well motivated giver".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow's_mite
-
You might as well say Mitt Romney loved X
because X gave more money to his campaign
than anyone else.
So in your terms your GOD would love you more
than he might love me because you gave more
money to his child abusing money grabbing priests
than I did.