This is a ridiculous non-sequitur. It’s also not any kind of real Christian belief, nor does it have anything to do with taxes. you can’t hit such folks back if they smite you, you can but forgive them while refusing to resist them sure as you can neither judge them nor cast a stone at them.
Really? You think absolutely no tax can be suppported by a Christian? Can you point to a single mainstream Christian denomination which supports this tirtured, idiosynchratic interpretation of scripture,. can you also explain how any structured society can sustain itself without taxes? Effectively, you’re saying that Christians have to be anarchists – that they can’t support any government at all. That’s a very novel interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, but it really doesn’t have much to do with explaining why the political religious right in the US opposes HCR. Can you provide a cite that this is the argumentation they use?
It’s not any kind of real Christian belief? I wonder if the Amish would agree with you.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. As you and I have both said, a Christian is obligated to pay his taxes.
I’m afraid that’s not how this works. The OP cited a couple of principles that command a Christian to pay his taxes and give his possessions to the poor, and then in a pure non sequitur moved on to discussing whether those principles apply to making someone else do that against that person’s will; they don’t, and I merely wish to (a) point out that said principles don’t lead to that conclusion, and perhaps (b) mention additional principles: forgiving people instead of judging them, turning the other cheek and resisting not evil, and so on – but it’s the other side that needs to produce a Christian principle that touches on instituting a new tax on others against their will; I’m merely saying I saw no such principle in the OP and have seen none since.
AFAIK, the only people in all of history who’ve espoused the crazy viewpoint Mr. Pepper attributes to Jesus are
[ul][li]bomb-throwing anarchists[/li][li] lunatics, psychopaths and idiots[/li][li] the modern American right-wing[/li][/ul]
Thus, although I don’t claim to be a theologian, to suggest Jesus belongs in this group seems sacrilegious.
Let me offer a simple example to make the point clear. 53,000 years ago, Ugg injured his knee, and Chief Boobi-boobi then ordered one of the other band members to part with some of his valuable stock of medicinal leaves to help Ugg.
The other bandsmen understood the appropriateness of Boobi-boobi’s order; in fact that’s partly why he’d been chosen as Chief. 30,000 years later people were even more enlightened and yet they still understood this. Africans understood it, Asians understood it, Greeks and Romans understood it; and yes even Jesus understood it. Everyone understands it except psychopaths, anarchists, etc.
Cheez! I read these threads and right-wingers keep claiming to have intellectual standing and in fact claim to pursue deep moral principles that liberals can’t comprehend! I’m sorry; most of the time you just make me laugh.
I didn’t mean to incorporate that “smiting” stuff into that response. I accidentally included part of your own post there.
The Amish believe that it’s a sin to ever collect taxes? Cite?
That’s a different question. The question is whether a Christian can support a tax, not just acquiesce to it.
This is a mischaracterization of the OP. He asked why these self-identified Christians would not want to use their own power of self-government to achieve the goals that Jesus set out for them. You response that they don’t want to collect taxes “against people’s will” is an unconvincing one since they support doing that all the time. It’s also not a principle supported by any kind of Scripture, nor is it, as far as I know, the argumentation that these people themselves attempt to employ.
Taxes aside (and that’s actually a fairly minor part of HCR), can you explain why they would oppose things like not allowing insurance companies to dump customers in the midst of cataostrophic illnesses, or fgrom denying coverage for people with preexisting conditions?
I don’t know who you think you’re kidding, but the Christian right opposition to this is not about some ultra-nuanced interpretation of Scripture, it’s about knee-jerk political resistance to a President they don’t like. You know it, I know it, the American people know it. Why try to deny it?
No, it’s deeper than that. You asked: “can you also explain how any structured society can sustain itself without taxes? Effectively, you’re saying that Christians have to be anarchists – that they can’t support any government at all.” If you agree that we’re on the same page about how Christians are supposed to acquiesce to such a tax, then I don’t see how you can accuse me of saying that Christians have to be anarchists; I’m saying they have to be law-abiding taxpayers who support any existing government program, be it the anal-lube supply you mentioned or the HCR that’s the point of the OP.
And my reply – so many times that I can’t help but wonder if I’ll be banned – is that whether they’re wrong on those all-the-time other occasions is irrelevant to whether they’re for once getting it right this time.
How is it ultra-nuanced? It’s utterly straightforward. Like I said in post #60, with emphasis added:
That’s not nuance. That’s, like, the opposite of nuance.
I’m not saying they believe that.
“Resist not evil” is a good start. “Judge not” probably fits, likewise. “Forgive men their trespasses”, too.
Here is a link to a webpage describing a Christian objection to the recent health care legislation.
Personally, I thought it was full of poo, though to each his own, I guess. However, when the discussion morphed into an insurance sales pitch (complete with FREE book), I nearly fell out of my chair. So, as the site says, “Do Yourself a Favor — Investigate This God-Blessed Option.”