[PBVBROOK]

You believe Jesus would employ the policy of theocrats: imposing his teachings on people by force, which is another example of why your arguments do not have credibility.

No guy. Those are your words not mine. If you are asking if I think Jesus would approve of his teachings being adopted by a government I say absolutely. He said that time and again. You, of course, have forgotten the world he lived in. It WAS a theocracy. You use the word force because you think it is cute or maybe effective. It is a stupid use of the word. To take your definition one must conclude that all government actions involve 'forcing' people to do things. Under our form of government of course we can FORCE the government to do whatever we the people want. We (the people) can levy taxes and we (the people) can abolish them. Your use of the term force is therefor incorrectly applied.

Are there consequences for disobeying the law? Sure. It is not government who "forces" the felon to prison it is the felon's actions that land him there. If a duly constituted democratic government imposes a tax for any reason it is done in every citizens name. Since the government IS the people it is ones fellow citizens that are imposing the taxes. Every citizen is expected to pay their taxes. If they fail to do so or worse refuse to do so it is their own actions that lead to the penalty. No different from a speeding ticket. The government does not "force" people to drive the speed limit but for the benefit of all citizens they impose consequences when the speeder chooses to ignore the law.

It is too bad that you do not believe in the democratic process. But never fear. You are not alone. It seems most libertarians these days think that liberty is getting ones own way. It never was and it never will be. Though it is a position that they share with children. It is a position that shows a lack of mature political thought and virtual contempt for ones fellow citizens.

[SecretSquirrel]

It is not government who "forces" the felon to prison

[Huntster]

I DO believe that Jesus would have no problem with taxing the rich to give money to the poor if they won't do it themselves.

Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and render unto God those things that are God's.

I've never seen any of God's tax policies outlined, nor any other words of Christ's regarding taxes.

But there are plenty of His words dealing with the poor, giving, and sacrifice. None included mention of government or taxes.

[Nattering Nabob]

But there are plenty of His words dealing with the poor, giving, and sacrifice. None included mention of government or taxes.

Govt opposition to abortion isn't mentioned in the bible either...I suppose you would say God is OK with a govt who allows abortion?

No?

Then why do you suppose that God doesn't want the govt to tax people to help the poor simply because it is not specifically stated in the bible that a govt should?

[PBVBROOK]

How about Psalms 72 for fun:

Psalm 72

The Reign of the Righteous King.
A Psalm of Solomon.
1Give the king (A)Your judgments, O God,
And (B)Your righteousness to the king's son.
2May he (C)judge Your people with righteousness
And [a](D)Your afflicted with justice.
3Let the mountains bring (E)peace to the people,
And the hills, in righteousness.
4May he (F)vindicate the afflicted of the people,
Save the children of the needy

Jeremih 22-15-16 on the duties of kings:
15 "Does it make you a king
to have more and more cedar?
Did not your father have food and drink?
He did what was right and just,
so all went well with him.

16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?"
declares the LORD

So there is an end to it. Straight from God's mouth to his believers. It is the duty of kings (government) to "defend the cause of the poor and needy."

So lets move on and understand that God does want a government that keeps His commandments and obeys his rules. The arguement that God does not want governments to help the poor with their resources is pure nonsense.

[Nattering Nabob]

Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.

Source

[DanDaMan]

For PBV....

This psalm contains a prayer (vss. 1-2), and then a prophecy (vss. 3-17) about a coming kingdom. On one level, the kingdom referred to is Solomon’s; and yet, there are passages in the psalm which could only refer to the coming kingdom of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. For instance, the Psalmist speaks of an everlasting kingdom, a universal kingdom, a kingdom of perfect peace, a kingdom of perfect submission of its inhabitants, and a kingdom through which all peoples on earth are blessed. These passages could only refer to the Kingdom of Christ, who will rule as a perfect ruler.
http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol12/L6/wis.html

The Story of Psalm 72

This psalm is about the best king that there can ever be! Maybe David wrote it for (or about) his son, Solomon; or maybe it is by Solomon. Christians have always believed that there is only one king it can really be about: Jesus!
http://www.easyenglish.info/psalms/psalm072-taw.htm

You should reconsider your leftist slant PBV. It is against God and family.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 669314763#

[Todd D.]

It's been my experience that those who try to use scripture to justify their own politics more often than not try and conform Jesus to their own views, rather than vice versa. There's precious little in scripture relating to just tax policy, welfare spending, etc. etc. Why? Because what the government does / doesn't do isn't really relevant to a Christian. Taxes could be very high, and that would not absolve you of helping your brother to the best of your ability. Likewise, spending could be very low, and that likewise would not absolve you of your responsibility to help the less fortunate. Earthly politicsare not God's primary concern, nor should they be Christians' primary concern. Bringing about the Kingdom of God is, and public policy should play very little in to that.

It is too bad that you do not believe in the democratic process. But never fear. You are not alone.

Obviously he's not alone, you're right there with him. You hold precisely the same view that Libertarians do, even if you disagree with the specific application. Examples include here where you disagree with the majority of Americans that object to extending marriage benefits to homosexual couples (and include the period in our history when the majority opposed equal rights to African Americans) and here where you note "our constitution and laws protect the minority members from the tyranny of the masses".

You might disagree with specific instances where the will of the majority violates the rights of the minority, but don't pretend that you believe in the pure "democratic process". You yourself cited two examples (gay marriage today and Civil Rights prior to the 1960's) where the "democratic process" got it wrong.

[PBVBROOK]

Why? Because what the government does / doesn't do isn't really relevant to a Christian.

Nope. It matters a great deal. Modern western Christians have the ability and responsibility to attempt to put their Christianity to work in government as well as their everyday lives. There is as much about government and taxes as there is about homosexualtiy. How many times does God have to say it before it becomes truth to you?

Earthly politicsare not God's primary concern, nor should they be Christians' primary concern.

Nope. The word you snuck in is 'primary'. A person's "primary" concern is, of course, his/her relationship with God. THEN he/she manifests that concern in his/her life. And that is where government comes in. Your statement is just wrong Todd. Christianity is not one thing done one time. It is a way of life.

Todd you need to post my whole thought rather than construct some nonsense from a quote out of context. I was speaking of using the term 'force' to describe all government actions and particularly taxes. I said:

It is too bad that you do not believe in the democratic process. But never fear. You are not alone. It seems most libertarians these days think that liberty is getting ones own way. It never was and it never will be. Though it is a position that they share with children. It is a position that shows a lack of mature political thought and virtual contempt for ones fellow citizens.

Nothing I said indicates in any way that I do not believe that our laws sometimes protect the individual from the tyranny of the masses. This even applies to tax law. The libertarians who make the argument that I was referring to (that all taxes are imposed by force) are denying that these taxes are not subject to the constitutional protections we all enjoy.

Feel free to believe that some taxes are constitutional and some not. That is your perogative. Try to change these taxes if you please. Just don't complain that the government is imposing these by "force". It is not. The people are. Take it up with them.

[DanDaMan]

Just don't complain that the government is imposing these by "force". It is not. The people are. Take it up with them.

That is not the case today when policy is being made behind closed doors and they bribe "states" and politicians with money and exemptions.
This is your democracy, power of the majority over the minority power, in action.
I hope you are pleased with your fascist leaders.

[Todd D.]

Nope. It matters a great deal. Modern western Christians have the ability and responsibility to attempt to put their Christianity to work in government as well as their everyday lives. There is as much about government and taxes as there is about homosexualtiy. How many times does God have to say it before it becomes truth to you?

There are several sects of Christianity that oppose involvement in civil affairs altogether, including the Ahmish, Menonites, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Personally, I don't believe that Christians should go that far and seperate themselves entirely, but the idea that they have a responsibility to use government to promote their faith is false, both according to the Constitution as well as the Christian faith.

Nope. The word you snuck in is 'primary'. A person's "primary" concern is, of course, his/her relationship with God. THEN he/she manifests that concern in his/her life. And that is where government comes in. Your statement is just wrong Todd. Christianity is not one thing done one time. It is a way of life.

Why does concern in their life become the concern of the government?

Nothing I said indicates in any way that I do not believe that our laws sometimes protect the individual from the tyranny of the masses. This even applies to tax law. The libertarians who make the argument that I was referring to (that all taxes are imposed by force) are denying that these taxes are not subject to the constitutional protections we all enjoy.

Fair enough, it just appeared to me that your statement was broader than that.

Just don't complain that the government is imposing these by "force". It is not. The people are.

Isn't that precisely what the concept of "Tyranny of the Majority" refers to? I'm not suggesting that the government is not the representative of "the people", but you and I both agree that there ARE times when "the people", in the form of the majority, do violate the rights of the minority. Whether this specific example of taxe is one of those times is obviously a matter of debate.

[RonPaulalways]

If you are asking if I think Jesus would approve of his teachings being adopted by a government I say absolutely.

You say no, but that's exactly what you're describing: a theocracy. A government that adopts a religious leader's teachings and imposes them on the population.

[PBVBROOK]

RPA said:

You say no, but that's exactly what you're describing: a theocracy. A government that adopts a religious leader's teachings and imposes them on the population.

Call it what you like. Jesus was raised in a theocracy. Why do you think he would oppose it. He said absolutely nothing about democracy, a subject he would never have thought to consider. There having never have been one in his world.

Todd said:

Personally, I don't believe that Christians should go that far and seperate themselves entirely, but the idea that they have a responsibility to use government to promote their faith is false, both according to the Constitution as well as the Christian faith.

Not so fast. I said nothing about government promoting anyone's faith. I am speaking of Christians favoring laws that reflect their faith. For example. Many conservatives would abolish abortion based upon their religious beliefs. That is NOT "using government to promote their faith." Health care and welfare is no different. It is not "promoting any religion" to vote for welfare based upon your religious belief that the poor should be cared for.

Why does concern in their life become the concern of the government?

Think about what you are asking. Voting? We are doing it today in MA. Even if the democrats win the seat in the senate they have been given a great lesson in what happens when the voters believe that the party has lost concern for what is going on in their lives.

Isn't that precisely what the concept of "Tyranny of the Majority" refers to? I'm not suggesting that the government is not the representative of "the people", but you and I both agree that there ARE times when "the people", in the form of the majority, do violate the rights of the minority. Whether this specific example of taxe is one of those times is obviously a matter of debate.

I agree. Sometimes the people do get out of line. Whether the concept of taxes is one of those times is indeed debateable.

[RonPaulalways]

Call it what you like. Jesus was raised in a theocracy. Why do you think he would oppose it. He said absolutely nothing about democracy, a subject he would never have thought to consider. There having never have been one in his world.

So then should social conservatives call for a theocratic government, in order to avoid being labeled as hypocrites by Democrats?

The fact is, the leftists insinuate Jesus was a socialist, but don't acknowledge what that would imply. Either he supported forcing people to give to the poor, in which case he would support creating a theocracy, where all Christian teachings would be imposed on people by force, including anti-sodomy laws, or he believed in people having the freedom to choose for themselves, in which case Republicans are right to oppose socialized health care.

[Captain Sam]

The fact is, the leftists insinuate Jesus was a socialist, but don't acknowledge what that would imply. Either he supported forcing people to give to the poor, in which case he would support creating a theocracy, where all Christian teachings would be imposed on people by force, including anti-sodomy laws, or he believed in people having the freedom to choose for themselves, in which case Republicans are right to oppose socialized health care.

1) Jesus said that to get in to heaven, you can't be wealthy. To be wealthy, means one is to be unchristian.
2) Universal healthcare isn't socialism
3) You don't know what socialism is
4) The Republican party (and to lesser extent the Democratic Party) have incredibly inconsistent platforms and it's just beyond fucking stupid that the same platforms remain today. The Republican southern strategy fucked up US politics.
5) Republican-ideologues are a bunch of fucking morons that are reason enough for why democracy doesn't work.

[DanDaMan]

2) Universal healthcare isn't socialism
3) You don't know what socialism is

Define for us the tenets of socialism?
Then show us the socialist based countries without it?

[kingbee]

You should reconsider your leftist slant PBV. It is against God and family.

Really?! I wonder what you think of Liberation Theology then? I know plenty of Christians who are socialist. I suppose they're not real Christians though, are they DDM?

And regarding the above post:

China doesn't have universal healthcare.

The UK, on the other hand, does. Except the UK is not a socialist country by a long stretch of the imagination.

However, universal health care is usually left wing.

[DanDaMan]

Correct, it's a a tenet of the Left wing and some of the greatest loss of life was done under the Left wing materialism.

This leftist materialism is seen today with anti-family values of abortion and gay marriage.

[kingbee]

Correct, it's a a tenet of the Left wing and some of the greatest loss of life was done under the Left wing materialism.

Let's go back over this: how can a Catholic movement be considered materialist?

And I personally I don't how allowing choice is anti-family.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
Correct, it's a a tenet of the Left wing and some of the greatest loss of life was done under the Left wing materialism.

Let's go back over this: how can a Catholic movement be considered materialist?

The old theocracy and Catholic rule was fascist and totalitarian. Not materialist but still Left wing since it was anti-Libertarian of the Right.

And I personally I don't how allowing choice is anti-family.

It promotes the crushing and sucking out the brains of unborn children.