income redistribution? (communism socialism, whatever)

Hmmm...
Well, given the presumption that the Bible accurately describes the words of Jesus, he very specifically says about taxes "Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's," ie the money belongs to the worldly government.  Therefore, he doesn't seem to have a problem with taxation, which is, at its core, income redistribution.

[size=4]Jesus Saves! Moses invests.[/size=4]

Eric The(Literal)Hun[>]:)]

Not a big fan of the communist system. :)

The biblical emphasis seems more in the vein of voluntary sharing - leaving the corners of ones crop for the poor, that sort of thing.

The centralized power & control of communism meshes quite poorly with biblical teachings - which is why communist countries are usually officially atheist.

Rikwriter: or it could be read that he was fine with the concept of paying some of your taxes with Caesar's $, but just didn't feel like being jailed for saying so.  Hardly an endorsement of taxation.

Ah yes, another example of how so much of the bible can be interpreted to fit what someone wants it to.

I think Jesus would say that forced income redistribution is an evil thing. I think that he would point out that a gift not given with a willing heart is not a gift at all, and that a true gift has much higher value.

Please provide scriptural or historical support for this argument.  I see nothing attributed to Jesus in the Bible that implies this whatsoever.
Actually, if you are of the belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, you should believe that God wholeheartedly supports income redistribution.
Recall Annanias and Saphira?

Tithes were 10% right?
What about taxes? What percentage was expected?

Matthew 24-26
24:After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"

25:"Yes, he does," he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?"

26:"From others," Peter answered.

From this you can see, if you believe the Bible, Jesus followed the law, even though He could see right through it as income redistribution.

Hmmm, why don't you stay out of threads regarding the opinion of Jesus?  I agree with you on just about everything you post except your religious views.  You have declared many times that you don't believe.  We get the idea.


"Give unto Caesar..." clearly just shows that worldly wealth is inconsequential in terms of eternity.  We are to focus on God, and if our government wants another stupid tax we should pay it to keep the peace, since it is completely irrelevant to our [b]spiritual[/b] well-being.  Matthew 6:21 says, "For where your treasure is there your heart will be also."  We are to have our hope and our "treasure" in heaven--God.

So God clearly wants us to focus on Him rather than on worrying about taxes--but at the same time He makes it clear that the lazy should be cut off.  I believe it is safe to say that if God were physically ruling our world, he would not be the sort to sign entitlement bills into law:

1 Thess 4:11-12
"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will [b]not be dependent on anybody.[/b]"

2 Thess 3:10
"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule:  'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'"

As for the reference which [b]e8ght[/b] was looking for, and which [b]RikWriter[/b] doesn't believe exists:

2 Corinthians 9:7
"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

Where do you get off telling me what I should believe? And what happened to Annanias and Saphira was a result of their LYING, and nothing else. What you don't see in the Bible is your personal problem. Take it up with your pastor.

You're exactly right.  For some reason I get the idea that RikWriter has some personal chip on his shoulder when it comes to Christianity.  He frequently writes similar things on threads like these, with his bitterness only thinly veiled.  My guess is he either hopes to:
1.  Have someone show him he's wrong.  Maybe he really wants to believe.
or
2.  Somehow convince us that we are wrong so that we also will forsake God.

Why don't you take your opinion of what I should or should not stay out of and shove it?



This has nothing to do with my belief or unbelief...it has to do with what Jesus would have believed about income redistribution.  If YOU believe that Jesus' words in the Bible are historical, then that's what he would have believed.  No matter whether *I* believe in the Bible's accuracy or Jesus' divinity, those who do would have to accept that the Bible reflect an accurate account of his sayings.
The quotes you give about being dependant can perhaps be taken as advice to Christians to stay off the dole, but have no bearing on whether Jesus believes that there should BE a dole.
The "render unto Caesar" quote addresses the issue of taxation most directly and no one here has been able to counter it...so instead, of course, you attack me.

You can take it up with your analyst...because you certainly need one to take care of all that unchecked hostility.
The execution of Annanias and Saphira was because of their lying, but the whole episode was centered on the practice in the early church of those who had money giving a large portion of it to the church for redistribution to the poor.
But, as with zonan, you can't attack the argument, so you attack me.

Looks to me like YOU are the one displaying unchecked hostility. And that's a nice piece of backpedaling on the Annanias-and-Saphira issue. Oh...and I "can't attack the argument"?? There's no argument here at all. You, the unbeliever, tried to tell me what I have to believe, and I told you to go f*** yourself. End of argument.

Have a nice day!

Useing the example below, it would seem that Jesus compared good economics to spiritual gain. In other words, we are accountable for what we are given. There is NO evidence Jesus would have supported govt mandated redistribution of wealth. The plumbline that must be used, is this; What does the bible say about taking something from someone against their will? It says, [red]"Thou shalt not steal".[/red] Stealing a mans labor, (income tax), is slavery. The "render unto ceaser" quote, must be understood in context. They were trying to trick Jesus, he turned their question against them. Whenever the Christian is confronted by that which is contrary to G*d's law, he is to resist. Jesus himself died rather than submit to the authorities of the day. He had a special mission, one unique ONLY to him. The redemption of all men.

[red]Matt 25;14 ¶ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15  And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16  Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17  And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18  But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19  After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20  And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22  He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23  His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24  Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25  And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26  His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27  Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
[/red]

Paul talks about submitting oneself to govt. Notice he says they ,(govt. officials), are "ministers of G*d". Do you think govt workers who do evil are ministers? NO! "A house divided against itself cannot stand"! Christians must resist evil........ Our own revolutionary war was preached from the pulpits of this nation. Why?? Because pastors of the day were not apostate from the Word....

[red]Romans 13;3  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4  [/red][blue]For he is the minister of God to thee for good.[/blue][red] But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6  For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 ¶ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.[/red]

That would be what your analyst would call "projection."  He'll explain the whole thing to you when you start your first session.



No, no backpedalling at all.  If you bothered to read for content instead of simply attacking the messenger you would understand that.



On your end there isn't, of course.  You lack the coherence to mount an argument and thus resort immediately to personal attacks.



Yes, your argument ended before it began...oh, and you're quite the Christian yourself, aren't you?  Perhaps we should start a thread entitled "What would Jesus have to say about self-described 'believers' using badly-masked profanity?"

[red]Acts4;32 ¶ And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33  And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34  Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35  And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need[/red]

As you can see rik, from the beginning of the story of Annanias and Saphira, this was entirely voluntary, and outside the govt. It's an example of believers taking care of each other, NOT strangers and non-believers...

Of course this was voluntary, if very strongly encouraged...I mean, it was considered The Right Thing to do, wasn't it?
But the point is, the Bible specifically encourages believers to share their income with the poor AND expresses an attitude of compliance to government taxation.  Taken together, this could be construed to mean that the Bible, and by extension of belief Jesus, wouldn't have a problem with government-sponsored redistribution of income.  Not that Jesus would say it should be done, but that he wouldn't tell his followers to fight it.
Now, there could be an argument against this, of course...whatever you believe on the subject, we are talking about someone whose only recorded Earthly words occured 2,000 years ago.  And you do make a good argument about the voluntary nature of the acts in...well, Acts. [;)]
I just think that some people have projected their contemporary political beliefs backwards into the Bible without really looking at what the book says.

This is true, a good example is Romans 13:1-7

[red]Romans 1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6  For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 ¶ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.[/red]

Many pastors teach their sheep that this means they must obey all govt. laws and regulations. Nothing could be further from the truth than this idea..... Those who believe and teach this corrupt theology are apostate.....

Well, actually your take on these verses would be a good example of contemporary people projecting their ideas.
Those verses in Romans are very very clear and echo others that even go so far as to counsel slaves to be obedient to their masters rather than running away.
Just because it runs against the grain of your personal political inclinations doesn't change the words in the Bible.  You'll just have to decide which is more important to you: your poliitical philosophy or your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Gee...the unbeliever is the authority on what the Bible says and means. Sara Brady is likewise an authority on the Second Amendment and Karl Marx is an authority on capitalism.

Case closed.

LOL...

When shit TRULY hits the fan, it is clear that only about 1/2 of us wiil be here to worry about it.

The rest will be, um, in a better place.

Have you done a study in the Greek of these verse's?

[red]1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil[/red]


What are the "higher powers"?
Remember, Paul represents the Government, ("Kingdom"), of Jesus.
[red]John 18;36  Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.[/red]

What are "the powers that be are ordained of God."?
[red]Matthew 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.[/red]

The word "of" God means;

5259 upo hupo hoop-o’
a primary preposition; ; prep

AV-of 116, by 42, under 48, with 14, in 1, not tr 6, misc 3; 230

1) by, under

In other words, if you have a civil authority which is conducting itself in accord with Gods law, then it is legitimate to submit to that authority. On the other hand, if that authority is of Satan, do you think God wants his people, (subjects), to submit to it??

Here is an exposition on the subject, written in 1853, if you're interested;
[url]http://www.covenanter.org/JMWillson/CivilGovt/civilgovernment.htm[/url]

I often wonder, if those who reject Christ do so because those who have tried to show them the way did not know it themselves...... We MUST go to the original languages, and understand context when reading scripture. Did you know that many of our founders and pastors of the day were reading the New testament in the original Greek??

Here's another quote on tax's

[red]Matt 17;24 ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25  He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26  Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.[/red]

Why did Jesus "prevent" Peter from entering? What was he saying here? Why did he correct Peter? Who does Jesus mean by "the children?

5207 uiov huios hwee-os’
apparently a primary word; TDNT-8:334,1206; n m
AV-son(s) 85, Son of Man + 444 87 (TDNT-8:400, 1210), Son of God + 2316 49, child(ren) 49, Son 42, his Son + 848 21, Son of David + 1138 15 (TDNT-8:478, 1210), my beloved Son + 27 + 3350 7, thy Son + 4575 5, only begotten Son + 3339 3, his (David’s) son + 846 3, firstborn son + 431
3c) of those whom God esteems as sons, whom he loves, protects and benefits above others
3c1) in the OT used of the Jews
3c2) in the NT of Christian

Jesus has corrected Peter. He knows how to answer the tax collector next time. But still a problem remains. Peter has incurred an obligation to pay the temple tax. Now what does he do?
Then Jesus goes on to say;

[red]Matt 27;27  Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.[/red]

Since the commitment has been made, Jesus chooses not to confuse the tax collectors. He explains, "Lest we offend them, go to the sea and throw out a line. Take out the fish you catch. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Take it to give to the tax collectors for you and me."

    Peter did not pay the taxes because they were owed, but because he volunteered to pay them. Once he made the commitment, he needed to make his yes'es, "yes." If Peter had answered correctly the first time, there would have been no need for Jesus to rebuke him.

This incident also denotes an end to the Mosiac law...

Thinly veiled? HA!

Who cares?
The guy lived about 2000 years ago, if he lived at all.

I don't get this. There is one thing to follow ones teaching, but to live ones life to an extreme by these teachings is dumb. There are very few things in his time that apply to today. There are general rules, like don't steal and don't lie, but asking how Jesus, for example, would live in our current economic environment and how he would invest is just stupid.

Is he a stock market man, or a muni guy?

Just live by the basic rules and you'll be all set. Don't try to look to deep into the rules and the writings.

Man, I have never seen a word in the bible that does not apply.

As for not trying to look to deep into the rules and writings.  Hmmm....  Man is almost supernaturally compelled to find God. To tell them don't look to close. Perhaps we are talking about two different types of looking. If you are looking to find contradiction then yes, that is not wise. But if you are looking to find truth, then by all means study think, learn, remember.  Of all the people I have ever spoken to about problems, non match the power of the bible to render clarity to those problems.

Everything I have ever encountered in my life has an analog in the bible. Some little tidbit, some little story, saying, scentence.. Its all right there. The manner in which the bible is written is truly astounding. The word usage the prasings. I hold that book in awe. And on your worst day you can pick up the bible and find comfort.

Actually you have yet to start making a case, much less closed one.  You have done nothing but attack me...you haven't supported your own position once.  Most likely because your position is insupportable.

Actually, if you believe that only those who actively engage in Protestant-style salvation will go to heaven, it would be much much less than half.  The incredible majority of people who ever lived...literally tens of billions...would be in hell.

You say this, but nothing in the Greek translation makes any point as to whether or not the higher powers were spiritual or earthly.  That is just your personal interpretation...really just wishful thinking, nothing more.

Really?  So you are opposed to mixed fabrics then?  

Whereas your bitterness and paranoia are not veiled at all.

RikWriter, its all about mixed fabrics. Its all about the cloth. Its all about the weave and the shirt that is worn by each and every one of us. Figuritively speaking of course

Uh...ok. (????????????)

All those (?????????) can be answered in the Bible. Do you have one???

Something about this scenario brings to mind a phrase I have heard...something about casting pearls before swine.  [moon]

Why are you so hostile?  Please read my post again.  I agree with you on most other issues, and just hoped that you would stay out of religious/theological issues which we already know you do not believe.


No it's not.  You give one verse which, even when I read it as a 10 year old, has the obvious interpretation that God does not want us assassinating our political leaders and leading rebellions because of taxes.  They have no bearing on eternity.  We are to focus on God.  It has absolutely nothing to do with income redistribution.  Nothing.

Hypothetically, let's say it was our government's policy to take our taxes and build weapons with them--weapons to be used on communist countries.  If our government was only using tax dollars for this purpose, and is not giving out money to anyone in the form of welfare, then [b]there is no income redistribution[/b].  Now, using your argument, you would say that God supports the continual bombing of communists.  So anyone with an ounce of sense must conclude that God was telling us to let the government have our money peacably, because it is meaningless.  He is not endorsing the policies of any one government.  Do you think there was income redistribution by the government in Caesar's time?


If you don't work, you don't eat, seems rather straightforward.


I just did.  But you made no real counter to my original post, except how I'm a hostile person.

I never attacked you.  You have been continually hostile to everyone of a differing belief.  You have serious problems.

As for my other post, about your bitterness being thinly veiled....  Imbroglio is right.

I believe it is in Acts. After Jesus left the earth the apostles and his followers actually went into a commy phase. They gave up most of what they had and lived in a communist society. They did this while they waited for the second coming because the wanted to be ready. They didnt want to have to worry about personal belongings and just worked for the better of the wole group(this is actualy where Engels got the idea it would work came from). After quite some time when they realized that the second coming wasnt going to be for possibly long time they decided that maybe the whole commy way of life wasnt so cool. They went back to their old way of life, got jobs so they could better support their own families while they waited for Him to come back.

Moral of the story, it was tried in thier time and they figured out it wanst so grand. It hasnt changed since then. Communism doesnt work and all we have to do is wait for it to collapse in on its self ,which it is already been doing from the get go, and protect our own intrests in the mean time.
[sniper]

But of course you have cast nothing but insults...so rest assured, you have wasted no pearls as of yet.  You've made no argument whatsoever, simply made ONE assertion followed by copious insults.  How...Christian of you.

Perhaps because I dislike people telling me what I can and can't post?  



Taxation IS income redistribution.  The government is taking your income and redistributing it.  The verse in question was pertinent to the question the original post asked.
I read the verse as it is written, despite your petty insults about 10-year-olds.



No, you did attack me and you have again in this post.  Since *I* originally was keeping with the intent of the thread and YOU were the one that, rather than address the thread on your own, chose to attack me, I would say you were the one with the serious problem.



No, just because Imbroglio is bitter enough to agree with your personal attacks doesn't make him right.

Ouch! Ouch! Please stop! Ooowwwieeeeee! Hey mods, please don't let this mean man do this to me anymore! Oooooowww! NO FAIR!

*snork*

[moon] [moon] [moon] [moon]

Even though you're merely further demonstrating your idiocy, you're probably right. Arguing with you is akin to hunting baby whales in a bathtub.

It has been a real pleasure toying with you, but I need to take a nap now. But before I go, I'll cast just ONE pearl before you, and you are free to make yourself look as foolish as you please without any further help from me. If you look back several posts, there is one by liberty86 in which he quotes the book of Acts:

Acts4;32 ¶ And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need

The difference here, in this "redistribution" example, it is entirely voluntary. And that is why it turned out good---no one lacked. Free will was not trampled, all was given freely and with a willing heart (which is the point I tried to make initially, but some folks don't listen cuz they're too busy talking). And that's a far cry from government mandated socialism where EVERYONE lacks. Maybe this is an illustration of Spiritual Law, at least to anyone who is willing to look and see.

This was also tried in Utah by the early Mormons.  They called it the United Order, I think.

It appears you were dreaming when you wrote this post...because only in your dreams were you toying with anything but yourself.



And thanks again for proving you didn't actually read anything I wrote.  I already addressed that point, but you were too intellectually lazy to read it.

[sleep]

That's the first accurate thing you've said...your brain has obviously been asleep since you started posting in this thread.  Shame your hands seem to move on their own...is it sort of like Tourette's Syndrome?  You can't control the obscenities your keyboard puts out?

You really should learn how to calm down. I knew a guy, who like you, was angry at the world. He was in such a high state of stress and hostility 24/7 he got an ulcer before turning 30, then a heart attack at 33. Now he has to take meds the rest of his life and avoid all confrontations or risk blowing another gasket. No one really enjoyed being around him when he was healthy and didn't really give him any sympathy when he got all messed up. I am asking you as a friend, don't end up like him.