Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I made the last substantial response: ball's in your court.
    So, your substantial argument is your whining about not understanding a thing you read? Well, I guess that IS the best argument you can give.
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
      So, your substantial argument is your whining about not understanding a thing you read?
      Actually, I said that what you quoted didn't make your case. Are you quite well?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        Actually, I said that what you quoted didn't make your case. Are you quite well?
        Exactly. Not understanding a thing you read.
        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

        Comment


        • What if the government just taxed the liberal socialist democrats since they are the ones who are so eager to raise taxes to help the poor people who are being downtrodden by society. That way they get what they want, and don't bother the rest of us.

          I wonder how long until they either go bankrupt, or decide to become republicans?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            What if the government just taxed the liberal socialist democrats since they are the ones who are so eager to raise taxes to help the poor people who are being downtrodden by society. That way they get what they want, and don't bother the rest of us.

            I wonder how long until they either go bankrupt, or decide to become republicans?
            They end up moving to other states that have lower tax rates. Like Texas. Oh...
            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

            Comment


            • I don't think even the left-wing like taxes all the much. Regardless of their proclamations.
              "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                Exactly. Not understanding a thing you read.
                Given that you can't even summarise my post correctly, I'm afraid the lack of comprehension lies with you.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  Given that you can't even summarise my post correctly, I'm afraid the lack of comprehension lies with you.
                  I'm sure in your world that would be correct.
                  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                  Comment


                  • Deut 15 is in the form of a covenant --- God says "you do this... " and "I will do this...."

                    God is explaining that He will bless His people (v 6) if they follow his commandment to show kindness to the poor.

                    There is no "third party" taking property by force and giving it to others.

                    In fact, there's a distinction between "your brother" or neighbor (vs 2) and and "a foreigner" (vs 3).

                    Verses 7-11 are instructions to be kind to your BROTHERS - not just any person. (Brother, later (vs 12), is defined as "a Hebrew man or a Hebrew Woman") What is really stressed here is the ATTITUDE with which you freely give, not worrying about the restraints of the law of release.

                    Even the release of slaves (vs 12-18) specifies "if he serve you six years"... indicating, according to most scholars I've read, that this is not intended to release somebody who has only served beginning two years prior to the year of release. Further kindness is commanded upon his release, however. It also allows for the fact that the slave may have been well treated - even treated like family - because they may be kept forever if they decline to be released (vs 17). Vs 18, again, stresses that the slave has already served six years.

                    Verses 19 - 23 deal with livestock.

                    As to the year of release....

                    Barnes' notes on the Bible

                    The year of release is no doubt identical with the sabbatical year of the earlier legislation (Exodus 23:10 ff, and Leviticus 25:2 ff), the command of the older legislation being here amplified. The release was probably for the year, not total and final, and had reference only to loans lent because of poverty (compare Deuteronomy 15:4, Deuteronomy 15:7). Yet even so the law was found to be too stringent for the avarice of the people, because it was one of those which the rabbis "made of none effect by their traditions."


                    It's not about a third party forcing anything - it's about God teaching GRACE to His people in their treatment of - in particular - their brothers.

                    Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

                    15:1-11 This year of release typified the grace of the gospel, in which is proclaimed the acceptable year of the Lord; and by which we obtain the release of our debts, that is, the pardon of our sins. The law is spiritual, and lays restraints upon the thoughts of the heart. We mistake, if we think thoughts are free from God's knowledge and check. That is a wicked heart indeed, which raises evil thoughts from the good law of God, as theirs did, who, because God had obliged them to the charity of forgiving, denied the charity of giving. Those who would keep from the act of sin, must keep out of their minds the very thought of sin. It is a dreadful thing to have the cry of the poor justly against us. Grudge not a kindness to thy brother; distrust not the providence of God. What thou doest, do freely, for God loves a cheerful giver, 2Co 9:7.


                    To attempt to torture this into any kind of support for forced redistribution requires an extreme legalistic view of God's covenants.

                    The PURPOSE of this was to Bless God's People for their proper conduct toward the poor or less advantaged.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                      They end up moving to other states that have lower tax rates. Like Texas. Oh...
                      Bring us your tired, your overtaxed, your victims of government oppression, your industrious workers just trying to make a living, your EMPLOYERS and investors, yearning to make good in the marketplace of freedom, I will lift their tax burden and show them liberty!

                      (with sincere apologies to Emma Lazarus)
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                        I don't think even the left-wing like taxes all the much. Regardless of their proclamations.
                        They LOVE taxes!

                        "tax not me, and tax not thee - tax that man behind that tree" (allegedly from a Colonial poster*)

                        (an actual printed poster, not an online blogger )
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                          What I think this is really about is pushing politics onto Scripture where it isn't warranted. They so badly need Scripture to say stealing is good so they don't have to feel bad about pushing an economical view that needs stealing to work.
                          It's like those people who claim that amnesty is Biblical.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            They LOVE taxes!

                            "tax not me, and tax not thee - tax that man behind that tree" (allegedly from a Colonial poster*)

                            (an actual printed poster, not an online blogger )
                            George Soros doesn't. He moved his business to Curacao so he didn't have to pay higher taxes.
                            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              I don't think it is even saying that, cp. Looks like it is just telling people to return to their family property and clan. It seems to assume they still own that property. Not that it is being given "back" to them (or anyone else, it looks like a long term rental or lease agreement expiring) (kinda like when we gave Hong Kong back to the Chinese after the lease expired. Or is there more?
                              I'm discussing Lev 25 with Pixie in the latest thread on slavery. Here's a little excerpt:

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                              Apologies, I do not recall you bring this up before.

                              The word in dispute here is 272 in Strong's concordance.
                              http://biblehub.com/hebrew/272.htm

                              It is a word that is used a lot to mean property as in an area of land. Did individual Hebrews not own land at all? I find that a little surprising; can you find anything else to support this claim? I ask, because I wonder if there was kind of two layers of ownership, with God owning everything, but individuals also owning a plot of land upon which they build a house or farm.

                              Let us look more closely. Leviticus 25 uses the word thirteen times,

                              10 And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his family.

                              Is this referring to crop output? Families have to return to their crop output?

                              24 And in all the country you possess, you shall grant a redemption of the land.
                              25 “If your brother becomes poor, and sells part of his property, then his next of kin shall come and redeem what his brother has sold.
                              ...
                              27 let him reckon the years since he sold it and pay back the overpayment to the man to whom he sold it; and he shall return to his property. 28 But if he has not sufficient means to get it back for himself, then what he sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the year of jubilee; in the jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his property.


                              Is this talking about land or about crop output?

                              32 Nevertheless the cities of the Levites, the houses in the cities of their possession, the Levites may redeem at any time.

                              That would be the cities of their crop output, right? The crop output of a city, whatever that might be...

                              What Leviticus 25 is about resetting ownership of the land. Every fifty years, land ownership reverts to what it was originally. And not to God. The idea that god owns the land is the rationale behind it, but the Hebrews also owned land. The idea of handing land back to the family or tribe who originally owned it makes no sense unless, you know, they originally owned it.
                              My argument was not that the word in question does not denote ownership, but that it does not denote it in the way we think of ownership. First of all, the text clearly states that God is the ultimate owner of the land, which means that in whatever way the hebrew word denotes ownership, it cannot refer to ultimate possession, rather, in the context of land ownership it's more like God is the suzerain who owns the land, while the Hebrews are his vassals, to whom he grants usage of the land so that they can enjoy it's produce. So when it talks about people returning to their property, it's not talking about people going back to their original possessions as we think of it, but rather as the people receiving back their rights of usage of the land. In the context of farmland it's usage results in crop yields, which is why you can legitimately say that what is sold is the crop yield (which is even explicitly stated in Lev 25:16 to be the case), while in the context of property where a residence has been built (such as in a city), it's usage would have been as a plot where a house could be built for shelter. It still refers to the rights of usage, not rights of ownership.
                              In other words, it's not even clear to me that you can claim that the original "owners" can be said to own the land in the modern sense of the word. In fact, the one thing The Pixie does seem to get right is that the rationale behind the reverting of rights to usage back to the original "owners" is that it is ultimately God who owns the land. Given this fact it could be argued that Lev 25 does not support redistribution of wealth, given that the Hebrews did not own the land they occupied (not even their ancestral land), instead God granted them rights of usage to that land. In contrast, in modern society when someone buys something, it is usually seen as legitimately his property, to do with what he wants (except in some irrelevant cases, such as when you buy a movie or videogame). In other words, Lev 25 is not about God mandating redistribution of property that has been sold by the owner to another person, rather it's about God mandating that rights of usage of His property should be returned from the current tenant family to the tenant family (or his extended family) that God originally granted the rights to use the land to.
                              ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                A contract can be voluntary between two parties yet a third party can force something.
                                Yes, but is it right for that third-party to force a change in a good-faith agreement against the will of one or both parties? I contend that it's not.

                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                I am reminded of libertarian Joel, who used to claim that all taxation was immoral because it involved the government forcibly taking resources from someone else.
                                And presumably you have a reasoned argument against libertarian Joel's point of view?
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, 07-27-2021, 10:22 AM
                                50 responses
                                413 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by seer, 07-26-2021, 12:04 PM
                                65 responses
                                403 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cerebrum123  
                                Started by rogue06, 07-26-2021, 07:21 AM
                                11 responses
                                102 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 07-25-2021, 07:36 PM
                                23 responses
                                144 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 07-24-2021, 01:18 PM
                                7 responses
                                188 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X