tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post8509513883958112616..comments2024-01-20T16:28:46.327-08:00Comments on Wordgazer's Words: Taxation is Theft? Kristenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-27147854763455285252015-01-24T09:59:45.657-08:002015-01-24T09:59:45.657-08:00Jared, I appreciate all your comments on my blog! ...Jared, I appreciate all your comments on my blog! It's important, I think, to understand the position of tax collector in its original, historical context. It wasn't like being an IRS employee today. Tax collectors were paid by Rome (the imperial occupier who had conquered the country) to collect much-resented taxes from the people on its behalf. For this they paid a very small wage, so that tax collectors almost invariably demanded more taxes than they were actually required to collect, pocketing the balance. When the Gospels refer to "tax collectors and sinners," they are referring to two despised groups of people. "Sinners" generally referred to prostitutes, thieves,etc." But it's also interesting that they don't lump the tax collectors in with the "sinners." They are two different groups.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-37666275309418662672015-01-23T18:41:37.453-08:002015-01-23T18:41:37.453-08:00It's not the Simple. Jesus supped with Tax Co...It's not the Simple. Jesus supped with Tax Collections and Prostitutes, but he still clearly declared being a Tax Collector to be Sinful.Kuudere-Kunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06537085979461349854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-269731340611831142015-01-22T16:07:22.584-08:002015-01-22T16:07:22.584-08:00Now if I believe the bible to be true, then I can&...Now if I believe the bible to be true, then I can't agree that taxation is theft. The pharisees questioned Christ on this very subject on rather they should pay the government taxes or not. <br /><br /><br />Mark 12:13-17New International Version (NIV)<br /><br />13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”<br /><br />But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”<br /><br />“Caesar’s,” they replied.<br /><br />17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”<br /><br />And they were amazed at him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-57893617059079551922014-12-14T09:45:11.898-08:002014-12-14T09:45:11.898-08:00Hi Ariel Rose,
I'm so sorry it's taken me...Hi Ariel Rose,<br /><br />I'm so sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I went and took your one-question survey. I'm now posting the web address as a hyperlink so more readers will take the survey:<br /><br /><a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MR2kRXLHAI6KCn-ce-HxtcDurrdO5KBjJk_hDYqk7KY/viewform?usp=send_form" rel="nofollow">Survey</a>Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-22248198894362063962014-12-03T15:18:14.422-08:002014-12-03T15:18:14.422-08:00Wordgazers words and readers...
I'm taking a ...Wordgazers words and readers...<br /><br />I'm taking a survey about spiritual abuse and the representation of survivors in the media. It's a very quick one-question survey, and your participation would be monumentally helpful! Thanks!<br /><br /><br />https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MR2kRXLHAI6KCn-ce-HxtcDurrdO5KBjJk_hDYqk7KY/viewform?usp=send_formAriel Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14798434588290658250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-46548380004987507632014-11-19T09:28:46.690-08:002014-11-19T09:28:46.690-08:00I might also point out that the things that 1 Sam....I might also point out that the things that 1 Sam. 8 says the king is going to "take" and "use" (with the possible exception of the armed forces) are described as things to enrich and empower the king and mostly involved demanding servants-- they were not things to be used for the benefit of the people. Though our current system is not perfect, it's a far cry from what 1 Sam. 8 is describing.<br /><br />So we will have to agree to disagree. I appreciate you stopping by!Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-37303476135529330252014-11-19T09:21:47.108-08:002014-11-19T09:21:47.108-08:00Tim,
I do appreciate the respectful dialogue and ...Tim,<br /><br />I do appreciate the respectful dialogue and acknowledge that it isn't likely we are going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. I do want to point out that the American colonies prior to the Revolutionary War did have taxes imposed by their own colonial governments, and did not object to these in the least. Here's a quote from a history source:<br /><br />"The colonists, however, uniformly resented the Stamp Act and its assumption that Parliament could tax them without their direct representation in Parliament. <i>The colonists taxed themselves through their own local assemblies,</i> and they resisted the limitation on their self-rule."<br /><br />Here's the site address: http://www.history.org/Almanack/life/politics/polhis.cfm<br /><br />Yes, the size of the new British taxes were at issue as well, but the fact is that the colonists did not object to taxes per se, nor did they deny a government's right to tax. The issue was Britain saddling the colonies with helping to pay Britain's own debts (it had been 150 years since the colonies had been started, and they no longer saw Britain's problems as their own), without the colonies having any say in the matter. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-83594267832108363422014-11-18T10:31:02.693-08:002014-11-18T10:31:02.693-08:00Hi Kristen,
I have read your other politics blog ...Hi Kristen,<br /><br />I have read your other politics blog posts. I confess that you and I are miles apart.<br /><br />On a happy note, many of your other observations from other blog entries, indicate that we are very similar on more important topics than politics. Please continue to write as you are led and able.<br /><br />I love it that you are thoughtful and free to write from your research, your experience, and your heart.<br /><br />God bless you,<br /><br />Tim ReisdorfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-63411055545079852932014-11-18T08:15:12.636-08:002014-11-18T08:15:12.636-08:00Hi Kristen,
I should not let it pass how wonderful...Hi Kristen,<br />I should not let it pass how wonderful it is to have a respectful discussion about about a contentious topic. I am grateful for your generous tone.<br />First, the American Revolutionary War. I believe that a major cause of the foment in the American colonies was about taxation - as representation would have practically changed their tax status exactly zero. While they did want representation, someone with "status" to plead their case, they had no illusions that this would switch the majority position in parliament. The "no taxation without representation" was a legal way to express their outrage at the taxes. The Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, the Sugar Act, and etc were hated because they were burdensome (they reduced the liberty of the colonists).<br /><br />Today's situation can be considered much worse, for the minority (in illusion) think their vote counts. Divided government was meant to limit government and protect minorities - and that has worked to some degree in the US. But both major parties have colluded in the idea of limitless government (so the battle is not big or small government but big or bigger government).<br />1S8 takes place in a very decentralized government situation. The time of the judges - and they did not take good advantage of their liberty. Instead they wanted a king. What would a king do? The NIV puts it like this: "The king will ... take ..., assign ..., take ..., take ..., take ..., take ..., and you yourselves will become his slaves." While other more modern forms of government were not considered, the results are the same as any big government. To understand this passage, "King" does not exclude "Queen", because they are functionally the same. But the same is true with "Dictator". The same is true with "Oligarchy". If the result to the people is the same (or meaningfully equivalent), then I lump them into the same group. So also I would put Communism (for that is really One-Party rule - a fancy name for Oligarchy). They issue for me is this, if Democracy produces the same results as Monarchy, then Democracy should also be "understood" in this passage. Really, the goal is not a particular system of government, but certain results of government. The take, take, take, make slaves of the government (think <b>taxes</b>) predicted by Samuel and God is to be shunned. Rather a limited government ought to be embraced. To put it in a phrase, "minimal government, maximal liberty." And yes, I'd be comfortable with a monarch (as Tolkien once imagined) whose highest calling was stamp collecting.<br /><br />I will have to check out your links a bit later. But yes, we are in agreement about the very disagreeable collusion of government with big business.<br /><br />But I do believe that the 3-branch form of US representative government as understood in the Constitution/Bill of Rights is excellent. Unfortunately, the US has moved far away from it. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments to see just how far away we are. There is nothing magical or spiritual about democracy or 3-branches. If it produces despotic results, then labels cannot hide the stench.<br />Respectfully,<br />Tim ReisdorfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-83206290218265178252014-11-17T13:28:31.018-08:002014-11-17T13:28:31.018-08:00Tim, I appreciate your reading my perspective and ...Tim, I appreciate your reading my perspective and respectfully offering a rebuttal. I do have two questions that I wish you'd explain further. First, the American Revolution was not fought over taxes themselves (whether single or double digit), but over taxation without representation. How do you equate today's represented taxation with that situation? My second question is similar. I see 1 Samuel 8 as talking mainly about the dangers of monarchy-concentration of power in the hands of one person. I see in the Law an attempt to at least provide some checks and balances by placing the king himself under the Law, and not allowing the king to also be a priest. However, the king as contemplated in 1 Samuel still had much more power concentrated in his hands than any one of our three branches of government does today.<br /><br />Can you show that the 1 Samuel passage is about <i>all</i> forms of centralized government, and not just about centralized power in the hands of one person, the king?<br /><br />The existence of representative democracy, of course, post-dates the Bible, so it's important to any position about what "biblical" government means, to determine how the Bible passages apply to today's forms of government. I don't think your position adequately does that.<br /><br />Finally, please check my Topic Index under the "Politics and Government" section and read my other posts on this subject. You may find that we are in agreement at least that the collusion of government with big corporations is unbiblical. But unless you can show some correlation between the monarchy being anticipated in 1 Sam. 8 and today's three-branch form of US representative government, I cannot agree with you. The important thing is not centralization vs. decentralization, but whether adequate checks and balances on power (and that includes corporate/business power) are properly in place. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971820842270330168.post-90755979580734653982014-11-17T12:15:11.102-08:002014-11-17T12:15:11.102-08:00Hi Kristen,
I hope you don't mind me following...Hi Kristen,<br />I hope you don't mind me following you to your blog - as you indicated on Roger Olson's blog.<br />I would really like to be constructive, if I can. I do think that taxation is tantamount to theft.<br />I suppose I'd let it all go if it weren't so soul-crushingly intrusive into the lives of pretty much everyone. The American Revolution was fought (in part) over single-digit taxation - but what people put up with now towers over that!<br />Not everything that is called a tax do I view as a tax. In MN, where I live, there is a tax on gasoline. In the original law, all the money collected from the gas tax was to go towards maintaining and improving roads. That would be like a user-fee. I can live with that. (Regrettably, the MN State government does divert money out of that to other purposes, so this exceptions falls apart somewhat.) I willingly pay user-fees for roads, firefighters, police, and etc.<br />I'm discouraged about your view concerning government. I take my cue from 1Samuel8 where God warned about centralized government. When I have a chance to vote, I take heed of this warning. I don't understand how Christians of good character and intention can look at world history, see the horrible fruit of centralized government, and vote for more of the same. These leaders promise peace and liberty and prosperity, but deliver war and slavery and starvation. If you want to see some of this played out in recent weeks, search on the internet for "Jonathan Gruber". <br />My arguments are confused and poorly worded, and I'm sorry for that. If you wish to grapple with intellects of great caliber, I'd point you to Lysandar Spooner and Murray Rothbard.<br />-Tim ReisdorfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com