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

quote:

---

quote:

---

Christians are still under obligation by God to pay taxes to governments that require them. Mismanagement and even immoral uses of tax dollars don’t get us off the hook.

---

This kind of thinking makes my blood boil.

---

As well it should. As indicated by Champagne above, this line of thinking necessarily leads us to the gates of Auschwitz: “Work will set you free…”

The main tenet of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that violates our Natural Rights is an illegitimate government. In no way does this contradict the teachings of Christ: the main lesson of the Gospel is indeed that higher moral truths should guide our actions.

So when earthly authorities act unjustly or contradict moral truth, resistance to such authorities is not only acceptable but is necessary for those who follow Christ. Citizens thus not only have the right to resist an immoral government, they may be morally obligated to overthrow an immoral government in order to protect their Natural Rights.

Jesus’s repeated rebuke of the Pharisees in of itself belies the claim we must always blindly submit to immoral civil authorities. It is a perversion of the Gospel to claim we have a moral or Christian duty to obey any immoral or evil government.

quote:

---

The main tenet of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that violates our Natural Rights is an illegitimate government. In no way does this contradict the teachings of Christ: the main lesson of the Gospel is indeed that higher moral truths should guide our actions.

---

Yes, but, look at it another way - Jesus did or said nothing that would persuade Jews to overthrow or even to agitate against the Imperial Roman Occupation Government. Surely this Roman Occupation was worse than King George's rule over the American Colonies. If Jesus did not advocate a Jewish Revolution against Rome, why would He support an American Revolution against the Imperial Royal Crown of Great Britain?

Are we saying that Imperial Rome was less oppressive than Britian?

Oh boy. We've happened upon a genuine topic for great debate here. It's a rare event that we find a topic so perfect for genuine interesting debate.

Very good. Good start to the New Year.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't think I'm ignoring any of it. Jesus called them hypocrites because they came flattering Him when they were putting Him to the test to persecute Him, and because they were Herodians, supportive of Roman rule over Israel.

Coins were used not just as currency but to show subjection to a conquered nation. Israel used Roman coinage to pay Roman taxes, and the fact that they had and used the coins was an acceptance of Roman rule over them. That's why Jesus called them out: they were asking a question about whether or not the Jews should show fealty to Rome rather than pursing their own independence, using taxes as the driving issue, when the Herodians already accepted Rome as their rightful conquerors, and used their money as an evidence of it.

Jesus pointed to the coin and asked whose image and inscription was on it, and it was Caesar, so Jesus told the to give to Caesar what he requires of them. They were obligated to submit to the rule of Caesar and that included paying taxes to him and his government.

quote:

---

If you want to delude yourself with some ridiculous notion that Jesus came to settle disputes about taxes, go right ahead.

---

While Jesus didn't come for that purpose, He did so functionally in His teaching.

This particular issue wasn't merely about money, but was about calling out the hypocrisy of those who were trying to ensnare Him in a trap. In settling the issue about money (really, submission and obedience), Jesus was showing His ability to know the hearts of men and His excellent wisdom as God.

quote:

---

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.

---

You are the one outside of Christian orthodoxy if you do not accept all the books of the Bible as authoritative as God's word. Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy all embrace the Scriptures as God's Word, and authoritative. There is no distinction between the words of Jesus and the words of Paul, because all of them are recorded for us as the inspired word of God. If you are a "red letter only Christian", I would urge you to consider your position.

That being said, Paul and Peter do not nullify Jesus' teachings, but support them.

Jesus recognized the authority of Pontius Pilate, though He clarified to him that his authority comes from God. That's what Paul said. Jesus submitted to the execution of Rome, though He could have defied it with a host of angels. Jesus recognized the authority of the Roman government with its tax collectors and soldiers, and did not tell converts to quit their jobs in that wicked government, but to act godly in their roles. That's what Paul taught, as well. It's because the teachings came from one source.

quote:

---

Sorry, I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. So far it seems like you want to have it both ways. I could be wrong about that, which is why I'm seeking clarification.

---

I appreciate the desire for clarity and asking for it in a respectful manner. I have no ulterior motives here and don't believe I'm saying anything controversial within the historical Christian context. I think what I'm saying is controversial in the American context, which, IMO, puts the Constitution above the Bible, and results in offense when it is suggested that Christ is King and higher than the Constitution, or that personal liberty is not the ultimate goal of the Christian. At least, that's been a common reaction I've seen over the years by even American Christians.

quote:

---

quote:

---

that's also why I said that lesser magistrates can potentially wage war and/or rebel on behalf of those they are ruling and governing.

---

This, for instance.

If the interpretation of what Jesus and Paul said regarding the authorities (which, in both cases was a response to very specific circumstances affecting the very specific audience each was addressing in a very specific way) is meant to instruct Christians in a blanket fashion that they ought not rebel against the authorities they find themselves subjected to, then why does that interpretation apply only to citizens and not to the lesser magistrates and colonial officials who are subject to higher authorities?

Has God not placed those higher authorities above the lesser magistrates and colonial governors in the same way that the lesser magistrates have been placed above ordinary citizens?

---

The idea is about office and authority. Jesus and His disciples taught about subjection to authority: Wives to husbands; children to parents; servants to masters; congregants to elders; and so on. One of the ways submission was taught was from the citizen to the magistrate. Paul grounds this authority in the magistrate being God's servant, commissioned for the good of society. The authority granted to the government is from God, and therefore to rebel against God's chosen authority is to rebel against God.

So why the difference between the citizen and the lesser magistrate? Well, the notion is that the lesser magistrate is acting within his divinely-granted office in protecting the people from tyranny and oppression, whereas the civilian citizen is not acting with an authority from God in doing the same thing. Just as the civil magistrate has the authority to put someone to death for a crime and the citizen cannot do the same thing because of the lack of authority, so the lesser magistrate has authority to defy greater magistrates due to their God-given authority as rulers over the people for their good.

While the lower authorities need to submit to the higher authorities generally, both the higher and lower authorities do have God-granted authority that the citizen does not. So while there ought to be general submission from the lesser to the greater, those with authority can use it for the good of the people whereas those without authority cannot use what they don't have.

quote:

---

But both colonial governors/magistrates and higher authorities have been given authority by God. Are you saying that any government official could undertake any action, and by virtue of the fact that God saw fit to place him in that position in the first place, he can't violate the dictum of Jesus and Paul here?

---

Yes, I think any government official (not merely a government employee, like a janitor who is employed by the DHHS, for example) vested with ruling/governing authority to protect has the authority from God to rebel if necessary. This could be a state governor, a city mayor, or a sheriff, who holds office to protect the people. Potentially this could extend down to local law enforcement, but I tend to think that they are not office holders in a strict sense, but work for the office holders, so can support an office holder in their rebellion against oppression and tyranny.

quote:

---

Conversely, are you also saying that ordinary citizens never have just Biblical cause to resist a government because God has NOT seen fit to place them in a position of authority?

---

Yes, at least active rebellion rather than passive rebellion. Active rebellion would be to, as a mere citizen, stir up others (or just yourself) to take up arms and use violence in response to perceived tyranny or oppression without the sanction of an office-holder. Passive rebellion would be non-compliance to sinful commands that lead to arrest and/or martyrdom.

quote:

---

That seems like ignoring the specificity of the context of the passages you cited. Like Jesus saying, "If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him your left...do not resist evil" means that you should never defend yourself and you should simply allow any evil that you come across to be expressed freely.

I think it's more nuanced and complex than that, isn't it?

---

I don't think it is. There is definitely more nuance and complexity in application to specific circumstances, but the principle is pretty simple and straight forward, as I understand it.

The example you mentioned about turning the other cheek is about personal retaliation for personal wrongs. I believe the particular use case is about an insult, rather than an actual act of violence intended to physically harm or kill another person. There are other passages in Scripture that justify the use of self-defense, either passively by fleeing from those trying to kill you (as Jesus did at times), or actively in fighting back to save a life, but even with active self-defense, that is typically one civilian defending himself against another civilian, not taking up arms against a government trying to arrest you for crimes.

quote:

---

I know this started about taxes and a Christian obligation to pay taxes, but I wanted to ask one question about biblical slavery and modern day slavery.

I am aware of the commands or edicts about slaves and servants, but when the Israelites destroyed the inhabitants of entire cities and such, like in Numbers for example, while all the men, boys, children, and non virgin women were killed, Moses told them to not kill the women and girls who were not virgins but take them for yourselves. They were their slaves then, yes?

---

They were to be taken as wives, and given the rights afforded to Israelite wives. They weren't "sex slaves", as I've heard some atheists argue. This was actually a mercy, as marriage wasn't commonly "for love" as we see it in Western society in modern times, but was for survival and for having children, and marriage for a woman was literally a life saver.

quote:

---

You 'll see the legitimacy when it decides to smack you in the face.

---

I believe this thread is more about venting disgust about our benevolent rulers. No one here is ‘not’ going to pay their taxes. I just hate to pay so much during prime earning years and despise the waste of tax dollars. However I have dealt with the IRS on 3 separate occasions and luckily dealt with reasonable agents and everything was resolved rather quickly with no problems.

quote:

---

I mean, personally I don’t think it ever had the right to steal from us. But now that we have irrefutable proof of the not only poor stewardship of OUR money, but the outright, all out, treasonous FRAUD and embezzlement taking place by the democrat politicians - they’ve lost ANY excuse to take my money. At least until these wrongs are righted. And the democrat party needs to be destroyed. It has become the bane of the US.

---

I can find quotes like yours made by other Americans 150 years ago so congratulations on the original thought.

So, when are you not just posting online and getting all riled up, when are you running for office and where? Why not start for some local city council office if you do not want to do Washington DC?

People complain on this board but noone ever runs for office.

Not with retards like you voting which make it largely impossible for change

quote:

---

My argument is that your interpretation here is incorrect. As Champagne mentioned in a reply, the pagan Roman government was far more oppressive and wicked than the nominally Christian monarchy in England, and yet no rebellion was called for there by Jesus or His disciples.

---

My only response here is that the strictly scientific perspective of the modern managerial state — which regards humanity as a mere accident of rigorous naturalism that is sadly restrained from reaching it’s full “trans-human” potential because of it’s stubborn embrace of ancient superstitions such as a belief in a Holy Creator or an obstinate adherence to antiquated moral codes — stands in stark contrast to Christians who assert that our souls possess the divine spark of the Eternal. I return again to C.S. Lewis — perhaps the greatest modern Christian apologist — to explain why the modern state trends ever toward tyranny and oppression, if not outright evil:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” God in the Dock: Essays on Theology.

The unmitigated evils promoted by deeply embedded and wholly amoral entities in our nation’s government approach a level of malevolence unseen since the days of Canaanite child sacrifice. Nothing is more demonic and anti-God than promoting the insidious ideology that it is an act of compassion to support the physical, mental and spiritual mutilation of children under this “transgender” agenda: it indeed is an evil which emanates straight from the lowest bowels of hell.