re: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.

quote:

---

I agree that Christians are required to be good citizens, but also have a question for you, were the American colonies justified in the American Revolution? The main cause of the war was taxation.

---

Well, it wasn't just taxation on its own, like the amount was just too high. It was the lack of representation in Parliament. They weren't getting the benefits that go along with voting representation but they still had to pay the cost of affiliation with England. I believe the colonists were paying much less in taxes per year than the average citizen in England, but the true concern was that they had to pay taxes to a government across the ocean without representation.

In regards to the justification for the war: I'd say, sort of? If the lesser magistrates (governors, for instance) wanted to break away from the Empire for the sake of their subjects, they could do that lawfully in upholding their offices to the people. Eventually the lesser magistrates got on board which legitimized the revolution.

Having a bunch of citizens rebelling against the government and seeking to overthrow it is unlawful according to the teachings of the New Testament, at least.

quote:

---

Assume they pay their taxes according to the principle. Given that, did the Jewish people have a moral right to arm themselves and violently kill and overthrow their Nazi Government?

---

They could have defended themselves, yes. Self-defense is a legal and moral right.

quote:

---

Assume they pay their taxes according to the principle. Given that, did the Jewish people have a moral right to arm themselves and violently kill and overthrow their Nazi Government?

---

Any time this discussion arises, it just is a matter of time before Goodwin’s Law is breached; yet it is a valid rhetorical question. And it brings to mind a piquant observation about the nature of the modern state from C.S. Lewis:

“The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to make us good — anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name ‘leaders’ for those who were once ‘rulers’. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.

….

Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists' puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value...” Willing Slaves of the Welfare State: C. S. Lewis

The point here is the authoritarian tendencies of the modern managerial state poses a great threat to genuine religious expression since it inherently seeks to regulate our natural rights. Don’t forget that the greatest assault to religious freedom in this country occurred during the COVID-1984 pandemic.

quote:

---

They could have defended themselves, yes. Self-defense is a legal and moral right.

---

As long as they dutifully paid their taxes.

quote:

---

In regards to the justification for the war: I'd say, sort of? If the lesser magistrates (governors, for instance) wanted to break away from the Empire for the sake of their subjects, they could do that lawfully in upholding their offices to the people. Eventually the lesser magistrates got on board which legitimized the revolution.

---

Colonists such as Patrick Henry — a devout Christian— would disagree. The increasingly oppressive measures from the Britain Crown were increasingly viewed as a gross violation of the colonist’s natural rights, prompting a grassroots movement that went beyond the authority of any magistrate.

Henry understood that sometimes moral imperatives necessitate drastic action outside of established authority. As indicated in Henry’s famous “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech, the legitimacy of the Revolution stemmed as much from the collective will of the people as from the eventual support of those in official positions:

…Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery!

quote:

---

Having a bunch of citizens rebelling against the government and seeking to overthrow it is unlawful according to the teachings of the New Testament, at least.

---

Congratulations. You’ve just invalidated the American Revolution.

You are a Tory. Your devotion is as much to the throne of man as it is to the throne of Christ!

quote:

---

Maybe when we’re done with the tax revolt, we can stop pretending regulations, permits, and licenses are anything but adult permission slips.

---

quote:

---

If you would like to make a biblical argument rather than a historical argument, I'd be open to it.

---

This is indeed where our disagreement occurs. I fundamentally reject the notion that there is a biblical justification for supporting an oppressive government.

Indeed, the claim that scripture can be bent to justify oppression such as chattel slavery simply underscores the reality that many passages in that Bible are indeed open to various understandings. While the Bible offers profound wisdom on salvation, political debates involving scripture can diverge widely depending on who is interpreting the scripture.

St. Thomas and the later Scholastics established that man’s capacity for reason grants him the ability to cognitively intuit — independent of divine revelation— that the natural world is governed by both moral and physical laws. Scholasticism thus demonstrated that philosophy can exist independently from theology and that man — through reason — is capable of comprehending both the systematic order of the natural world and man’s place in it.

By grounding our discussions in Natural Law and the political philosophies that advocate for the inherent dignity of all individuals — whether Christian or heathen — we can better navigate these essential conversations without the constraints of contentious scriptural interpretations. No variance in scriptural interpretation can undo the principles upon which that our nation was founded:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....”

There should be little doubt that this nation was founded upon the radical proposition that our rights preexist government. As such, those rights are “inalienable” and are based on Natural Law, the basis for all human freedom throughout history and cultures.

If our rights are determined by man — and by extension government — those rights are not “inalienable” since that which can be granted can be taken away. C.S. Lewis reminds us in The Abolition of Man that the moral framework of Natural Law anchors our understanding of value and rights:

“The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purports to be new systems or ideologies all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.”

quote:

---

Good attempt, but that's not exactly what happened. Jesus asked for a coin and pointed out the image and the inscription, which both indicated that the coin was Roman and belonged to Caesar. That's why Jesus said to give to Caesar that which belongs to him. He was acknowledging Caesar's right to require taxes using the money his government creates. He didn't comment about idolatry but giving what belongs to Caesar. In other words, Jesus said to pay what Caesar (the government) requires in taxes because its their money. The account is the same in the synoptic gospels.

---

You somehow ignore the context that’s right there in Jesus’ response.

He calls them hypocrites. What hypocrisy? The image of Cesar on the coin itself and concern about matters of money and wealth violates the law of Moses in a very basic, easy to comprehend sense. They don’t care about the law. Which is why he calls them hypocrites. If you want to delude yourself with some ridiculous notion that Jesus came to settle disputes about taxes, go right ahead.

You use later letters as if they somehow nullify entire swaths of Jesus’ teachings. The writers of those letters can vaporize all they like but it is out of alignment with what Jesus’ himself preached and should be approached with caution. Your perspective on the history of the canonical process needs calibrating if you’re prone to applying equal weight to across books.


Luke 12:13-35
13 Then someone from the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But Jesus said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator between you two?” 15 Then he said to them, “Watch out and guard yourself from all types of greed, because one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” 16 He then told them a parable: “The land of a certain rich man produced an abundant crop, 17 so he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ 18 Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to myself, “You have plenty of goods stored up for many years; relax, eat, drink, celebrate!”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded back from you, but who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ 21 So it is with the one who stores up riches for himself, but is not rich toward God.”

Exhortation Not to Worry

22 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. 23 For there is more to life than food, and more to the body than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn, yet God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than the birds! 25 And which of you by worrying can add an hour to his life? 26 So if you cannot do such a very little thing as this, why do you worry about the rest? 27 Consider how the flowers grow; they do not work or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these! 28 And if this is how God clothes the wild grass, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into the fire to heat the oven, how much more will he clothe you, you people of little faith! 29 So do not be overly concerned about what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not worry about such things. 30 For all the nations of the world pursue these things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31 Instead, pursue his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out—a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

So is OP going to stop paying their taxes? If not then this thread is dumb.