Obama's team whines too muchFollow

No. Not really. The reason they were trying to "catch him with his words" is because Jesus was well known for calling on people *not* to pay their taxes, and otherwise participate in civil disobedience. He disliked greed, but didn't have any problems with people who honestly earned their wealth keeping it.

His answer is a classic dodge. They expected that he'd either have to admit that he disagreed with paying taxes, which would be a criminal offense and they could have him arrested for it, or he'd have to publicly state something in opposition to his teachings (lie to save his skin). They were amazed because he came up with a clever turn of phrase that allowed him to respond without actually committing himself publicly to either position.

That passage should absolutely *not* be interpreted to mean that Jesus commands his followers to support any tax that should come along.



Given. Not taken. Big difference. Jesus didn't concern himself with the presence or absence of wealth. It was the person that mattered. Obviously, he believed that those with wealth should use it to help those less fortunate, but it's the choice to do that which is important, not the shuffling of the money.

Look at it another way. If you are wealthy and choose to use your wealth helping the poor, that's a good act. It means that you aren't greedy and do care about the poor. If the government takes the exact same amount of money from you each year without you having any choice in the matter and spends that money providing the exact same service for the poor, you haven't done anything "good", have you? We can't say if you are greedy or not because you didn't make the choice.


It's the act of charity that matters, not the money. It's what you choose to do with your money that matters. You could spend it on yourself, or helping someone else. I suspect that Jesus would not approve of a government taxing the wealthy in order to spend that money on the poor. Not at all. He'd want the wealthy to spend that money on the poor of their own choice, not by some legal fiat.

And Jesus said unto the Sheriff of Nottingham, ************* you, I'm keeping my money and buying hookers and blow".

I remember a few years ago there was a 60 Minutes or 20/20 segment on living below the poverty line in America where a reporter interviewed people who were classified as poor and they had a home in a lower class neighborhood, furniture, food to eat, TV, an older model car and the show made the point that the living conditions that pass for poverty here in America would be middle class or higher in a third world country. Even if this is true for some poor just under the poverty line, I know that there are poor in America far worse off than those interviewed and they need desperate help. The fact that some people classified as poor live comfortably does not mean all poor do and therefore should not be helped. Perhaps part of the problem is that the line between poverty and not being in poverty is too arbitrarily drawn and other conditions besides just income per person impact a family's ability to provide the basic needs for themselves.

The only other part of the Gospels I know of where Jesus mentions taxes is this:...in which Jesus makes a point about earthly vs heavenly kingdoms but also makes a point of paying the tax so as to not upset the system. Jesus had no intention of making a scene of civil disobedience here or else he wouldn't have had Peter pay the tax with miracle-fish money.

As for Christianity in general, Paul carries on Jesus' theme and makes it about as explicit as possible:

It's funny that the religious have aligned themselves with the Right in a lot of ways when concerning wealth. My understanding of the Bible, especially in the context of Jesus (which Christians are all about) and wealth is, if you are blessed by God to be wealthy, the only way to properly be wealthy and worthy to be in the presence of God, is to spread your wealth to those that don't have it.


It all ties into the same message, love thy neighbor as you love thyself, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and this fully explains Christianity's true view on wealth.




Call it Socialist, call it stupid, call it dogmatic, doesn't matter. It is clear that Jesus, and God, aren't big fans of those who ***** about paying taxes because they don't want to support "Poor-drug addict niggers that'll never help themselves".


There aren't provisions, there aren't exceptions, there are no if's, and's, or but's.

I've already shown you, by scripture, that Jesus did mettle in the affairs of the presence and absence of wealth.

Er? It's in the damn quote that sparked this part of the conversation Joph.

I think, Capitan, that he was referring to your wild guess that "Jesus was well known for calling on people *not* to pay their taxes" and the complete lack of absolutely any evidence of this in scripture.

I think welfare is necessary and helpful in some cases, but it's abused way too much.

I mean seriously, how many people out there claim to be poor, yet they have one, some or all of the following:

1) Cable TV
2) Fancier car than they need
3) full stomach

So I think that both sides are right. One thing I don't agree with is that being poor is anyone's fault but that poor person (unless they're a child or have other really extenuating circumstances). There's so much opportunity in this country that if you're really just scraping by, you've made poor decisions in your life.

Isn't that the relevant part of the issue?

No.


It's certainly ridiculous to make an argument of the following form:

1. Republicans oppose higher taxes

2. Many Republicans are Christians

3. Jesus said to pay your taxes

4. Therefore Republicans are wrong to oppose higher taxes.

I agree, you look ridiculous pretending anyone is doing so.

On the other hand:

1. Republicans oppose redistribution of wealth

2. Many Republicans are Christians

3. Jesus said to redistribute wealth

4. Therefore Republicans are wrong to oppose redistribution of wealth.

Is perfectly valid. Not that I give a fuck what an imaginary Jew who got nailed to a tree is reported to have said, but if you were inclined to care, it would be absolute hypocrisy to support the further enrichment of the most wealthy.

This.

I'll damn Smash with faint praise but noting that he's sharper than Gbaji.

The set-up to the "Caesar" bit was that Jesus had, that morning, told the crowds a parable which reflected poorly upon the Pharisees. The question they posed to Jesus was essentially "You say that God is the only one worthy of praise and tribute so I guess we shouldn't pay our taxes, huh?" and obviously set up to give the Pharisees something to go to the Roman authorities with. Had Jesus been "well known" for telling people not to pay their taxes, the Pharisees wouldn't have needed such a ham-handed attempt to get him to cop to subverting Roman law.

Jesus, being smarter than the average bear, turns the trap into a lesson in paying your taxes and respecting the Lord.

I think Gbaji comes to this forum only to get anally raped.

Gbaji: Tell me, google, where in the Bible did Jesus protest paying taxes?

Google: Nowhere.

Gbaji: Wait, google, surely some lunatic has made this argument before me?

Google: Well, there's this small portion of Luke 23 that can be taken completely out of context and changed wholesale..

Gbaji: Aha! Luke 23, and I suspect that Laura was involved in some point! Where in Port Charles does this take place, google?

Google: Oh here, already.

Gbaji: Aha! Then Luke stole the Ice Princess, I suspect!!!