I am a Liberal

[Tex]

Crud...now you sound like a conservative! Just when you think you got a fella all figured out....

I am socially conservative and against the welfare state. The socialist part is what you're not liking, which requires the higher taxes I support. To clarify, I support permanent amnesty so long as the standard entitlements only go to citizens, which would not include those protected under amnesty. So, Texas, Arizona, California, etc could have a large non-citizen population that works below minimum wage and pays taxes. The labor would be subject to supply and demand at this point because, as non-citizens, they have not come under the responsibility of the US government. If violent immigrants arrive, I'm not against prison labor.

I'm still halfway liberal on immigration. But I'm not a democrat. At all. It's the socialist thing that seems to act like sandpaper around here.

Btw, the bailout of General Motors was a socialist move, as was Social Security, Hoover Dam, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (most radical of all of them yet). Most people support America's historical socialist advances. I simply want more. The only reason Britain colonized the new world was because the Royal Crown provided the tax revenues it received toward a private venture. The socialist state works, it's the superfluous welfare that drags the system down.

@S4C

Thanks for the post. I think the large majority of it is not necessary for a Christian, but I do not think it is incompatible for a Christian either. You seem to be very expressly abandoning all that this world has to offer, including the good, much like a monk. I am against monasticism and asceticism for the same reasons I am against what you seem to be preaching; not because it's anti-Christianity, but because it does not contain the fullness of what Christianity can be, even under sinful people.

Also, I am not "angry" or in "a locker of hurt". I am looking for ways to benefit the political sphere.

We’ve already explained, with the word of God, why voting is unscriptural (post #48). No one has rebutted that. Although you’ve said that you’re about to refuse to vote on a particular upcoming issue, you’re still giving life to that dead thing, that dead image i.e. Caesar’s voter franchise. You must completely cease partaking of the wicked thing.

I do not think voting is wicked. Participation in the government is what Paul did when he elected to be judged for his crimes in Rome rather than Judea. Paul used his Roman citizenship rather than abandoned it.

Tex, your present situation is killing you (and the majority reading this). For example, the USA is going down the tubes RIGHT NOW. No one would knowingly sign on for a program that leads to bondage and death, so DECEPTION must necessarily be employed...

I will die because I am a sinner, not because I participate in government. And my government is going down the tubes. Why should I abstain from helping it? This is the call of all men: to love your neighbor as yourself. However, you would choose to abandon a powerful organization that benefits many? You hurt your neighbor by ignoring the failure of the government. You have been given power, yet you take your talent and bury it in a hole. Instead, it is better than you love your neighbor and help move a failing organization.

Also, God did not ‘give us a government.’ He IS the government!

God raised up David to be king of Israel. David enacted many things and whether we call them "laws" or "ordinances" is arbitrary, for they are all from the governmental seat. There are laws in accordance with God and laws that are against God. Obviously, I prefer the former, but these laws, passed by men in the realm of men were support by the Lord himself. God established David as king. Service to our God usurps service to the government, of course, but it was God that allowed David to tax. In cases where the government acts as David, I support them, as does my God. In points where my government acts as a pagan Caesar, I support reform, as does my God. However, even if a second Nero came to power, I would still give to Caesar what is Caesar's. God has given me many authorities, including my mother and father, other elders, a police officer, my government, etc.

When the Israelites asked for a monarchy, it was out of a covetousness for the governments around them. However, once the covetousness punished and the people repented, did they not receive David? And Jesus submitted to the rule of Pilot. He could have sent in angels to destroy the opposing kingdom, yet instead submitted to death by the hands of Caesar. It cannot be immoral to follow the rules of a government, so long as they are not against the righteousness of God.

Take a deep breath and pray for discernment now. The enemy certainly does not want you to learn the following.

The following was misinterpretation. Taxes are not evil, they are a tool. Tobacco is taxed because of the harms it gives, and so less people smoke now than before the taxes. The condemned taxes were issued because of Pharaoh, and Israel's king put his trust in Egypt rather than the Lord. Taxes themselves are fine, but they are not the Lord. Claiming ownership to property is fine, and it was done by Abraham, David, and all the people of the Old and New Testaments. For a government to claim land is not a usurp of God's authority, it is a structure in place to organize a population, regardless whether it is a theocracy or not. Claiming property is not evil. Abraham only gave 10%. Everything Abraham had was God's, yet it was also Abraham's because it was a gift. Equally, all the land in the world is owned by the Lord, yet it is simultaneously owned by governments.

No, he did not. 'Jesus paid taxes' is a popular lie taught throughout evangelical Christianity. Religion has always been the tool of choice of tyrants to control the sheeple.

The sons are free. The two-drachma tax was a temple tax, not a tax from Caesar. Yet, while they are exempt, Jesus is still moral. If what Peter had obligated him to do was immoral, Jesus would have corrected Peter. It is not immoral to pay taxes, even temple taxes. If the Church demands money, you are exempt because you are the Church. You cannot tax yourself. Yet, you can still pay it. Matthew 17:24-27 doesn't teach it's ok to skip out on taxes, it teaches that the church organization does not have the authority to tax you. Peter said "yes" so readily because Jesus pays all his taxes. He spoke too soon and assumed this was also on the list.

No, you don’t, and you are in bondage because of it. This is why you’re angry and are lashing out with silly political/worldly rhetoric that only drives you deeper into that worldly bondage. Wouldn’t it be awesome to be truly free from that image of the beast?

Again, do not call me faithless. I hail from the city of God. You do not know my heart. My allegiance to anything this world is under my allegiance to God. I am not a citizen of any other spiritual kingdom. I can also be a citizen of a physical kingdom and not forfeit my primary allegiance. The physical world is not evil. The physical world is a creation of the Lord, and organizations of men are often blessed by the Lord, such as marriage. Equally, governments can be blessed, as they are simply organizations. I do what God calls me to do because I have faith in our Lord. And I can do those things within a government.

This is not about faith; it’s about DOING what God said to DO -- not with mere lip service -- but actually performing due diligence.

This is not lip service. Faith is not knowledge either. I am objecting to your failure to do diligence within your government.

Which Bible are you reading from??? Paul did NOT spew philosophy. In fact, we are warned NOT to spew such vain deceitful worldly traditions because others will DESTROY (i.e. spoil) us for it

Paul used Greek philosophy and poetry to convince Athenians. "In him we live and move and have our being" is from Epimenides of Crete, a philosopher of the day. "For we are indeed his offspring" is from “Phainomena” by Aratus. John used Greek philosophy too. "Logos" was first used by Heraclitus, and the light-dark contrast, as well as more, is common in Platonism. You read KJV, which is awful, so your Col 2 passage is wrong. It should read, "See to it that no one takes you captive by sophistry and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." That is not how philosophy is meant in that context. "Philosophy" is literally "the study of wisdom". Wisdom is not evil. Manipulation is evil, and that is also a connotation of the word, depending on the context. Christian philosophers were all over the place from Jesus until about 1500. Then we begin to get the atheist and pantheist philosophies we all know and despise. C. S. Lewis was a philosopher. Paul was a philosopher. John was an eastern philosopher (totally different style than anyone in the west).

The kingdom of Heaven is against the kingdom of Satan. However, earthly governments are not one or the other. They are a group of organized men. That's it. Rightful participation in a government is loving you neighbor. Rebelling against a tyrant is loving your neighbor. I call you to love you neighbor.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Tex, I've cited scripture from the Holy Bible 88 times in my previous post, whereas you've cited zero scripture.

Where's the truth that you would claim to love and obey?

Again, your opinions do not jibe with the Holy Bible. I'll pick just one of your posted thoughts at random and document the truth of the matter.

Participation in the government is what Paul did when he elected to be judged for his crimes in Rome rather than Judea. Paul used his Roman citizenship rather than abandoned it.

Probably the first objection people usually say is that Paul, an apostle of Christ, called himself a "citizen".

Acts 21:39, "But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people."

Some people might say, "Well, it must be okay to be a citizen because Paul said he was a citizen." On the surface, that looks like a tough argument, but it's not, and we'll see why it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. The meaning of 'citizen' has changed since the first century; in the first century, "citizen" did not have the same meaning it has today. At that time, all it meant was that you were a citizen of a particular city, and it required no allegiance to Caesar. As a matter of fact, the word "citizen" comes from the French word "cite," which means "city." Here is further evidence from the Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.

Citizen: "[See City, and cf. Cit.] One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Of or pertaining to the inhabitants of a city."

City: "The collective body of citizens, or inhabitants of a city. What is the city but the people?"

Cit: "A citizen; an inhabitant of a city; a pert townsman."

And here is further evidence from man's law that "citizen" meant a member of a city during Roman times, and required no allegiance to Caesar, as it does today:

Citizenship: "One who, as a member of a nation or body politic of the sovereign states, owes allegiance to and make claim, reciprocal protection from its government. The term appears to have been used in the Roman Government to designate a person who has a freedom of the city and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, a partial citizenship including civil but not political rights. Complete citizenship embraced both." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 329.

Note there was no "allegiance" to government in Roman citizenship, and it only had to do with the city you lived in, within Roman territory, and it only meant protection of the city. Also, look at the next verse in Acts. It uses the term "license" (Acts 21:41). A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. Obviously, the license given Paul wasn't a picture I.D. which had his name, address, and so forth on it. This was only a verbal "license" or permission. We must be careful not to impose 20th century definitions on words that were used in the first century, and this includes the terms "license" and "citizen."

"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights." Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.

First of all, who is our "protector"? Christ is our shield and buckler (Psalms 91:4). Why are we looking to the State for protection? No man can serve two masters. The courts have consistently ruled that the police "protection" has to do with "property," and has no duty to protect people. To look to the state for protection is like looking to a criminal so that he won't hurt you. "Please don't hurt me." When the cop shows up at your rear view mirror, and his lights are flashing, you don't feel "protected," do you? The next time you get stopped by the police, say, "Thank you for your protection. I'm so glad you stopped me. Wow! What a relief! I felt so unprotected until you came by and protected me."

In Smith's handbook of Elementary Law, it says that "a citizen is a permanent member of the state...owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection. The status of his membership as citizen is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth, by the nationality of his parents, by his election, or by some form of naturalization."

Notice that citizenship may be determined by the place of "birth," which is why one of the first questions a cop asks you is about your birth date and birth place. And it also has to do with "naturalization." The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." There are conditional clauses there. Just being "born or naturalized" in a country does not make one a citizen of that country, one must also be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

This is easily explained by the following example. If an American soldier is stationed in Germany, and has a baby that's born in Germany, that baby is not considered a citizen of Germany but of America, even though that baby was "born" in Germany! Why is this? Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of Germany, they are subject to the jurisdiction of America. Why? Because that is the law that the parents have submitted themselves to.

How do we, as followers of Christ, determine if we are subject to the jurisdiction thereof? A lot has to do with the words that come out of our mouth, but it also has to do with our walk. Are you truly serving Christ or are you serving the State (by partaking of its benefits)? Most people are driven to State worship because they love the "protection" the State gives, they love the things of the world. So, if you're not subject to Christ, he puts you under a taskmaster, the heathen, like he did with Israel. And that's the state of the people who live, move, and have their being in the State today; they're in captivity and don't even know it.

Just because one is born in a country it does not make one a citizen of that country; especially when it comes to ambassadors:

"Citizens are natives or naturalized. All persons born in the United States are not citizens. The exceptions are 1) children of foreign ambassadors..." Bouvier's Institutes of Law, 1851.

Bondservants of Christ fit this description. We are children of God, and we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20). Therefore, this is further evidence that ambassadors are not considered citizens of a country, even if born in that country. Also, as ambassadors for Christ, we can not participate in the politics of the nation.

To put this citizenship thing in a much simpler frame, here's a court case from 1865:

"You have heard some discussion as to the meaning of this term 'citizenship of the United States.' It has a plain, simple, everyday meaning, and that meaning you may safely take, without a definition, is that unequivocal relation between every American and his country which binds him to allegiance and pledges to him protection." United States v. Darnod, 25 Federal Case Number 14,915 page 763.

This is completely opposed to what scripture teaches, which is to "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another" (Romans 13:8). If we owe allegiance to Caesar, we not only owe something besides "love," but we are trying to serve two masters, which Christ says is impossible.

I call you to love you neighbor.

There's nothing but love motivating this post. But when a man is blinded by the civil idolatry of State worship, it is very difficult for him to discern that.

 

[Tex]

@S4C

This isn't going anywhere. I know my position is right, and you've gone past extremism in the political sphere. You're blind to truth.

But, I'll comment on one thing.

Tex, I've cited scripture from the Holy Bible 88 times in my previous post, whereas you've cited zero scripture.

Where's the truth that you would claim to love and obey?

You should get what I'm referencing. I had multiple bible references. I should not have to type out every verse. You own a bible.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

This isn't going anywhere.

Did you have expectations that your OP would “go somewhere”? You crashed it yourself before it even started, as myself and others have pointed out.

You're blind to truth.

You haven’t posted any truth.

But, I'll comment on one thing....
You should get what I'm referencing...You own a bible.

So do you, and you need to use it.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. (Isa. 1:19, 20)
Obviously, you’re unable to reason together the scriptures, as you continue to champion opinions over truth. The question is, why?

Your posts appear as monuments to contradiction as they continue to devolve into a morass of doubletalk and gibberish. You’re also projecting a lot, which is a defense mechanism that involves taking your own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.

I am reminded of James 1:8: A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

I suspect that there may be something more at play here than mere civil idolatry. No offense intended, but is there another explanation? Would you want prayer? If so, please tell me/us of your needs that we may intercede for you.

I know my position is right, and you've gone past extremism in the political sphere.

Of course, you can’t be bothered with the truth; we see that.

Meanwhile, your authority, the “political sphere” to which you give obeisance -- God-less jack-booted thugs -- is at your door. And they’re not interested in hearing your opinions or how you voted... Selah.

Prepare for judgment.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

@S4C

This isn't going anywhere. I know my position is right, and you've gone past extremism in the political sphere. You're blind to truth.

But, I'll comment on one thing.


You should get what I'm referencing. I had multiple bible references. I should not have to type out every verse. You own a bible.

I'd like to see just one. Because not even once does the Bible EVER justify the evils of liberalism. Every precept of liberalism is demonic and militates against the righteousness of God. People who defend liberalism tend to stay miles away from any Bible because in it is contained a strong rebuke for the agenda they push.

 

[Foreigner]

One thing I am left scratching my head over is the fact that many Liberals support Mrs. Obama's work to require that all meals served at school to be healthy, allowing only certain things be offered and outright banning the serving of several others, (all in the interest of what's best for our children).

Yet those same Liberals start to snap, spit and twitch if the idea is then floated that the same type of food restrictions should then be considered for those on Welfare/food stamps. Currently any and all types of chips, soft drinks, candy, snacks, and "unhealthy" food (at least by Mrs. Obama's standard) are allowed to be purchased via food stamps.

The Liberals that make the argument that we have no right to impose standards on the type of food that can be served to someone's children flat out miss the irony that that argument holds no water for the school lunch programs.

To them I would ask, "But what about the children?" ;)

 

[RANDOR]

All are wakin up.....the liberals are all wakin now.....but...this administration could care less what party you call yourself....for the unprepared conservative will be standing in the same soup line side by side with the liberal. And it is happening as we speak....it's not coming....it's here.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

All are wakin up.....the liberals are all wakin now.....but...this administration could care less what party you call yourself....for the unprepared conservative will be standing in the same soup line side by side with the liberal. And it is happening as we speak....it's not coming....it's here.

I wish that were true, but I think liberals are becoming more deluded than ever, even pushing for pot legalization so they can become even more inebriated and synaptically disarmed.

 

[RANDOR]

I wish that were true, but I think liberals are becoming more deluded than ever, even pushing for pot legalization so they can become even more inebriated and synaptically disarmed.

Vale I agree.....I'm notorious for bein lazy at posting :) they are becoming deluded more than ever....but it is when they wake up is when we are in true trouble, when they finally get it.....don't know if ya have been watchin..Huckabee, Judge Jeanine, Megyn,...but the liberals they have had on in the past month...WOW!!!!!!! NOW THEY ARE all coming out against this imposter.....but..it's getting to be to late...for oblama is out to destroy this country.
Watch Judge Jeanine tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vale I live at 9000 feet......doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, contractors, retired....all are dug in and have their food and water.

And yes lets not forget....THEIR AMMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A years worth of food...1.5 years ago was 1400.00.same food is now 2000.00...it won't be long till it is up to 4000-5000.
Those who who keep puttin off gettin prepared are goin to perish!~

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

RANDOR, I would just say I understand the "head for the hills" thinking, but when society truly becomes unglued, the right place for ambassadors of Christ like you and me is amidst the frightened and disoriented people pointing them to Jesus. I hope you agree with that.

 

[RANDOR]

RANDOR, I would just say I understand the "head for the hills" thinking, but when society truly becomes unglued, the right place for ambassadors of Christ like you and me is amidst the frightened and disoriented people pointing them to Jesus. I hope you agree with that.

Couldn't agree more....but when I'm hungry....all I can think about is eatin

 

[Brother James]

My heart is moved to advocate positions that most reduce human suffering and misery, and that promote more liberty and freedom. It is for freedom that Christ made us free. The spirit that wants to control others is what inspires fascism, genocide, and tyranny so I avoid positions that advocate the government (i.e. corrupt men of power) deciding for others those things that people are best suited to decide for themselves.

Now, I would be called a liberal on capital punishment and our criminal justice system. A lot of my liberal friends are right-wing extremists on those topics. I believe it is essential that we reform our immigration system. The status quo is disasterous, and yet if you talk about reform you'll immediately be shouted down as an advocate for "amnesty" which is the dirtiest word in the English language to some. I feel great compassion for those who do what I would do if I was in their same situation, with a wife and children living in a dirt-floor hut in a third-world country and companies begging me to come work for them illegally in America.

But things that hold people in bondage are evil, and that is what our government has created through social programs. There are better ways that would give more freedom to people but that involves taking away power from the powerful who administer the current system under the illusion that they are acting out of altruism. I no longer see a lot of sense in screaming "liberal" or "conservative" any more. People can think this or that but unless they know what the fundamental values are that form the foundation of their positions, they are just doing what seems right in their own eyes. That's meaningless.

 

[Tex]

I'd like to see just one. Because not even once does the Bible EVER justify the evils of liberalism. Every precept of liberalism is demonic and militates against the righteousness of God. People who defend liberalism tend to stay miles away from any Bible because in it is contained a strong rebuke for the agenda they push.

Since you asked, I'll go ahead and post verses.

Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’

Galatians 2:10
Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Galatians 6:2
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.

---------------------------------------------------------

All of these verses should be taken as a Christian and applied to politics.

Meanwhile, your authority, the “political sphere” to which you give obeisance -- God-less jack-booted thugs -- is at your door. And they’re not interested in hearing your opinions or how you voted... Selah.

Wait, you used "obeisance". You're a JW. That explains a lot.

@Brother James

Well put.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Since you asked, I'll go ahead and post verses.

Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’

Galatians 2:10
Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Galatians 6:2
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.

---------------------------------------------------------

All of these verses should be taken as a Christian and applied to politics.


Wait, you used "obeisance". You're a JW. That explains a lot.

@Brother James

Well put.

Where does the Bible support your skewed and perverted rendering of "charity" by which taxes are extorted from people and government agencies set up? To think you actually take those verses to support the forced redistribution of wealth only demonstrates the contempt that you and all Leftists have toward the Bible. No respect! Biblical charity is a personal act of love by which people voluntarily reach into their own pockets (not somebody else's) and help people on a personal level, not divesting that obligation to some government bureaucrat. How do you see the face of Christ in the person you help when you're "help" is nothing more than a heartless government policy?

So as I said before, NEVER NEVER does the Bible EVER support the demonic Leftist principles that you champion in your war against the righteousness of God.

 

[Tex]

@Vale

Stop with the insults. Why do you feel it is ok to insult? Why do you do this? It is completely unnecessary and sinful. I have asked you to stop. You continue. Is your goal to get a rise out of me? Are you simply attempting to make me angry? That too would be sinful. Reply to me again without insults and I'll respond. I do not like your insults. I do not deserve them. You are simply tearing down what you do not understand. You are hurting people. You are sinning. Stop.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Stop with the insults. Why do you feel it is ok to insult? Why do you do this? It is completely unnecessary and sinful. I have asked you to stop. You continue. Is your goal to get a rise out of me? Are you simply attempting to make me angry? That too would be sinful. Reply to me again without insults and I'll respond. I do not like your insults. I do not deserve them. You are simply tearing down what you do not understand. You are hurting people. You are sinning. Stop.

Wrong. You, Tex, are "hurting people." This thread began with your OP, your Op/Ed. So now you'd cry it's "sinful" to require posting of the scriptural imperatives that would justify your mere opinions?

Brother James (post #92 ) said it well:

People can think this or that but unless they know what the fundamental values are that form the foundation of their positions, they are just doing what seems right in their own eyes. That's meaningless.

Last time I checked, this was a God-honoring site; he is the authority. You'd best honor him; cease honoring yourself and the worldly system.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[Tex]

@S4C

I'm hurting no one. Progressive taxes is not a harm, it is justice. I do honor God. Thank you for the reminder though.

And requiring scripture is not sinful. Spreading lies that I have contempt for God and his Word is sinful.

Not providing scripture is not sinful. What I have been saying is in accordance with the righteousness of God, regardless of how I support my argument. Noah did not have any scripture to quote from.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

@S4C

I'm hurting no one. Progressive taxes is not a harm, it is justice. I do honor God. Thank you for the reminder though.

Then show us with the word of God how "progressive taxes is not a harm." I've already show you that such IS a harm -- and I did it with scripture.


And requiring scripture is not sinful. Spreading lies that I have contempt for God and his Word is sinful.

Then show us otherwise -- with scripture.

Not providing scripture is not sinful.

"Not providing scripture is" vanity and vexation of spirit. Opinions are worse than worth-less.

What I have been saying is in accordance with the righteousness of God, regardless of how I support my argument.

Says who? You? Who's your authority? Your opinion is no better than anyone else's. In truth, you have been spreading discord among the brethren with your baseless, unscriptural, scripture-less opinions in this thread.

Noah did not have any scripture to quote from.

HE didn't need any; he got the truth, the word, in-person:

And Noah walked with God...and God said unto Noah... (Gen. chap. 6).

Here's a description of the situation you have brought in to this thread:

And it came to pass, as we went to [the forum thread], a certain [OP poster] possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought [his worldly masters] much gain by [politicizing]: The same followed [other posters], and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did [he] many days. But [a poster], being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of [him]. And he came out the same hour. And when [his] masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught [two of the posters], and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers, And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them. And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. (taken from Acts chap. 16; emphases mine)

I don't concern myself as much with the world dynamic as I do with my next-door neighbor or a professed "Christian" brother. Rather, it is guys who talk like you do, without the authority of Christ, who will ultimately kill those of us who submit to the King of kings as our authority:

They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. (John 16:2, 3)

Again, I strongly suggest you start speaking like Jesus did; start doing the will of the Father, and the Father alone, and leave the fleshly opinions and worldly politics with their originator, Satan. Get to know the Father.

 

[tom55]

@ Tom55

A flat tax is unfair because the poor necessarily consume more, therefore invest less.
How does a poor person consume more? I don't understand your statement! Wouldn't the rich consume more since they have more money to spend? And if they spend more money, aren't the paying more (sales) tax?


A progressive tax is the only fair system.
Wouldn't it be FAIR if everyone paid the same percentage? Six percent of 1 million is more than six percent of thirty thousand so the rich would be paying more.



Tax discounts are government assistance, yes. What I was attempting to communicate is that I do not take all of the government assistance that I actually qualify for. I do not need it. And certainly, big business does not need assistance.
We agree on something; get rid of all deductions for business AND the individual.


They deserve a base amount of goods (minimum wage), all of which is already offered.
What should the minimum wage be?

Again, I am not pro-welfare state, I am a socialist (government owned business, much like GM's primary stockholder is the US government due to the bailout).
Historically we have seen how well that worked in other socialist countries :blink:


I want to pay more taxes.
As I stated before, you can. So why don't you?



At the very least, I want more taxes so the debt may start to shrink.
Do you REALLY think if the government TOOK more taxes from us they would use it to shrink the debt?


Finally, you should read the whole thread before making dumb comments. First, I live in Texas and went to Catholic University, so 90% of my friends are hardcore Republican. All but two millionaires I know are 100% Republican (except for the gay guy, but he's still pretty far into the right wing). None of them give to charity (Ok, the gay guy gives a few dollars, but it's less than 1% of his income). They say that no one deserves it but them, they earned it, it's their money. And it is, but that's the same mentality of my sister when she was 7. I think too many people act like 7 year olds.
Soooo... just because you live in Texas AND you went to a Catholic University I was supposed to assume 90% of your friends are hardcore Republican? Since I didn't ASSUME that, that makes me dumb? Not only are you a socialist, your mean!! Yes, they earned it, so they should keep it if they want. IF they want to give it away, it should be their choice. You are pro-choice, aren't you?

I equate taxes with charity, yes.
How can you? Paying taxes is required by law and if you disobey the law you get thrown in jail. Federal officer could kick in your door, with guns, and take you away if you owe and refuse to pay. If you don't give to charities you don't get thrown in jail. How can you equate paying TAXES with CHARITY?


The upper quintile does not give enough to charity, so I support forcing it.
The "upper quintile" , you and me don't have to give to charity. Equating giving to charity to being forced to pay taxes is absurd.

The more the government gets, the more it will spend. It will always be in debt whether you or I or the billionaires pay 1% or 50% tax and the poor pay nothing. It will never be enough for them. Have you not learned that yet?

Crud...now you sound like a conservative! Just when you think you got a fella all figured out....

I, TOM55, don't think Tex is really a socialist. I think TEX just like to stir the pot.... You can't figure him out!

 

[Tex]

@S4C

I do not need to do anything you say. I could cite scripture, but it would be useless. So I refuse your demands. Truth is, and I can say something true without quoting the bible. If you want to know where my references are, look it up yourself. I am not going to read the bible for you, do it yourself. My assertions are scripture-less, true, but they are still biblical. When Paul spoke to the Athenians, he did not quote scripture. They didn't know scripture, and it would be useless.

Love your neighbor, and when your neighbor is poor, do not burden him with laborious taxation. Instead, take it upon yourself to pay what the poor man cannot.

There, that has three bible verses in it. Go find them if you do not recognize them.

@tom55

I'm truly liberal. My specific title of liberal is "progressive". If you know politics, I am perfectly in line with the Populists of the 1890s and 1900s. They were the most liberal of American liberal parties in their day. I am less liberal in social areas than the common democrat, yet more liberal economically with government ownership of corporations (including railroads, car companies, agriculture, post office, etc.) The best-known Populist William Jennings Bryan is famous for a speech called "Cross of Gold". They were all very socially conservative, like me. They denied evolution and I don't, but that's not political. The reason you see me as generally conservative is that I support Christian morality and do not support the welfare state.

Simply put, a progressive tax is just because it takes money to make money. Of a percentage of income, the poor man must consume a larger percent because food, electricity, rent, etc, is all at a fixed amount. If prices were also a percentage of income (say it took 10% of your monthly income for your monthly food bill, regardless of your income), then I would be for a flat tax. Since the $1 bread loaf is also the same for the rich guy, the $1 is a higher percentage of income for the poor guy. If your food bill for you, your spouse, and 0 children is $600 a month and you make 60,000 total together, that's 1% of your income that you must consume. If you instead make 600,000 total together, that's .1%. You don't have to spend as much percentage of income for necessities.

Minimum wage should be left as is. Just don't move it. Working 20 hours a week, $7.25 provides $145.00 a week and $580.00 a month. This isn't a lot for one person, but it's manageable. If you have a roommate, you can easily get an apartment at $350.00, which allows for food and transportation also. Taxes and welfare programs would not need be engaged for this person; they can make it without government help. If they had kids or worked less than 20 hours a week, they might need some food stamps. If they're not working at all, they better be legitimately looking for a job, and I'd love if we could add mandatory volunteer hours while unemployed too.

I think that socialism is the only reason why Europe hasn't died yet. The welfare system they have is extravagant, and without socialism I think they'd have economically crashed years ago. Instead, they're just now boarderline.

The rich have a duty to give to the poor. It's part of that camel and needle and heaven thing.

Finally, I don't think the government would take the extra taxes and reduce the debt. But, that is my political position. I'm thinking of political perfection. At our current technology level, this is what I think would be most efficient.