PDA

View Full Version : tithing, religion and tax sf. wall to wall labor



antichrist
01-01-2012, 08:19 AM
Lefties make me wanna puke.


is Christmas sharing a leftist conspiracy - just like tax

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2012, 09:25 AM
is Christmas sharing a leftist conspiracy - just like tax
Of course not. Christmas sharing is voluntary, out of one's own pockets. Leftardism involves taking from other people by force.

antichrist
07-01-2012, 10:28 AM
Of course not. Christmas sharing is voluntary, out of one's own pockets. Leftardism involves taking from other people by force.

what about tithing like dictated by the Bible - I have seen pressure put on followers- and it is even God-sanctioned.
At least the Govt mostly provides value for money with our taxes: hospitals, roads, dams, whereas the churches only provide backward ignorant superstitious brainwashing rubbish for our tithe

Desmond
07-01-2012, 02:14 PM
At least the Govt mostly provides value for money with our taxes: hospitals, roads, dams, ...pink batts...

antichrist
07-01-2012, 05:31 PM
pink batts...

but that was the contractor's problem if any,nothing to do with the govt so says my scant view of it

antichrist
07-01-2012, 05:32 PM
what about tithing like dictated by the Bible - I have seen pressure put on followers- and it is even God-sanctioned.
At least the Govt mostly provides value for money with our taxes: hospitals, roads, dams, whereas the churches only provide backward ignorant superstitious brainwashing rubbish for our tithe

I am waiting for a comeback from Jono for this beauty

I even feel triumphant about this one

antichrist
08-01-2012, 03:11 PM
If it is okay for Christianity to charge 10% tax (tithe) then why can't the state also tax? I have been told that if you add all the tax committments in the Bible it comes to about 35%

Not even the luxury of a flat tax as the teabaggers want

Adamski
08-01-2012, 04:38 PM
If it is okay for Christianity to charge 10% tax (tithe) then why can't the state also tax? I have been told that if you add all the tax committments in the Bible it comes to about 35%

Not even the luxury of a flat tax as the teabaggers want
Tithing and percentage-based giving to the church or ministries is basically an Old Testament concept. You can't just add up OT tax percentages like that. New Testamant giving is based on generosity and what one believes God wants them to give. See Second Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 e.g.

antichrist
08-01-2012, 05:16 PM
Tithing and percentage-based giving to the church or ministries is basically an Old Testament concept. You can't just add up OT tax percentages like that. New Testamant giving is based on generosity and what one believes God wants them to give. See Second Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 e.g.

It may be OT but the NT churches still attempt to charge it, and often successfully. Should they disown it like that do with lot of other OT baggage? And go broke at same time?

Goughfather
08-01-2012, 05:55 PM
Tithing and percentage-based giving to the church or ministries is basically an Old Testament concept. You can't just add up OT tax percentages like that. New Testamant giving is based on generosity and what one believes God wants them to give. See Second Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 e.g.

Of course, whether or not tithing remains applicable to Christians today, antichrist's question is one which deserves an answer from Jono. If as Jono believes, all Scripture is the word of God, then the regulations relating to tithing were God ordained taxation relating to the people of Israel. It is most convenient for self-described Christians such as Jono to cherry pick texts to bash people over the head with while neglecting passages which provide for a state/God mandated safety net for the poor.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2012, 06:20 AM
Of course, whether or not tithing remains applicable to Christians today, antichrist's question is one which deserves an answer from Jono.
Yet, typical of leftard dishonesty, you didn't rip AC for claiming it was 10%, as you have "fundamentalists". You have rightly pointed out that it was more like 235, not that it was news to me. But sure, 23% is good enough for God, so it should be good enough for our government. But look at the current brawl in the UK, where the envy-coddlers are objecting to reducing the top 50% tax bracket.


If as Jono believes, all Scripture is the word of God, then the regulations relating to tithing were God ordained taxation relating to the people of Israel.
If you and AC want a theocracy, then advocate for it properly!


It is most convenient for self-described Christians such as Jono to cherry pick texts to bash people over the head with while neglecting passages which provide for a state/God mandated safety net for the poor.
Like what? The Bible actually teaches personal generosity not a secular government bureaucracy as leftards like you and AC worship. There were also instructions to leave the corners of the field unharvested, as well as no second passes. This was to leave gleanings for the poor. But gleaning was hard work, not a handout for doing nothing.

As Adamski said, Paul taught different things for the Church, such as "cheerful giving", but to the Church not to the government. Paul also taught generosity, but specifically said that some types of people were not to be helped. For example, those who will not work should not eat.

Acts 5 also doesn't teach socialism. The donations were voluntary, and the money was distributed by the Apostles, not the government. Furthermore, as it turned out, it created immense social pressures to out-do each other, and ended up impoverishing the Jerusalem church so much that Paul had to ask the church at Rome to help bail them out (Romans 15:26)

antichrist
10-01-2012, 10:22 AM
Acts 5 also doesn't teach socialism. The donations were voluntary, and the money was distributed by the Apostles, not the government. Furthermore, as it turned out, it created immense social pressures to out-do each other, and ended up impoverishing the Jerusalem church so much that Paul had to ask the church at Rome to help bail them out (Romans 15:26)
__________________

would they have reached a higher plane in Heaven for out doing each other in donating?

And does that lesson teach us balanced budgets?

Goughfather
12-01-2012, 05:49 PM
Yet, typical of leftard dishonesty, you didn't rip AC for claiming it was 10%, as you have "fundamentalists".

Why would I? He makes no pretensions as to being a biblical scholar.


You have rightly pointed out that it was more like 235, not that it was news to me. But sure, 23% is good enough for God, so it should be good enough for our government. But look at the current brawl in the UK, where the envy-coddlers are objecting to reducing the top 50% tax bracket.

Except that 50 percent (less in Australia) is the marginal tax rate, rather than the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for the majority of Australians is below that 23 percent and a third percent tax rate that you're so wonderfully clever for knowing about.

Of course, even if some people do have higher effective tax rates (although I don't see provision for tax deductions or indeed for accountants that can bring the tax rate down well below the abovementioned figure, you are no longer arguing about the principle of taxation, but merely arguing about the price.


If you and AC want a theocracy, then advocate for it properly!

I'm not advocating for a theocracy and I doubt AC is either. I merely point out that the Torah makes provision for a safety net for the poor.


Like what? The Bible actually teaches personal generosity not a secular government bureaucracy as leftards like you and AC worship.

The Torah does not make tithes optional and in fact does proscribe a bureacracy, effectively speaking.


There were also instructions to leave the corners of the field unharvested, as well as no second passes. This was to leave gleanings for the poor. But gleaning was hard work, not a handout for doing nothing.


Again, it is mandated that the owners are deprived of the fruits of their labour and their private property rights. How does that fit in with your capitalist ideals?


Acts 5 also doesn't teach socialism.

I never said it did. Indeed I never even mentioned Acts 5.

You can't explain away the comprehensive bureaucracy and the broad safety net envisaged in the Torah by appealing to unrelated proof texts. You haven't turned Marcionite on me, have you, Jono? You still believe that the edicts in the Torah are divinely mandated, don't you?


Furthermore, as it turned out, it created immense social pressures to out-do each other, and ended up impoverishing the Jerusalem church so much that Paul had to ask the church at Rome to help bail them out (Romans 15:26)

Ahh, so that's your proof text for the rescue of Goldman Sachs, is it?

EDIT: Before you engage on some kind of rant about the banks owning the Democrats, let me just state two things: Firstly, that the banks have an unfortunate strangehold over Democrats and Republicans alike and that both sides are responsible and that secondly, my comment was merely in jest considering your reference to bailing out the churches. Let's focus on your disregard of the Torah and not get drawn down tangents.

Goughfather
19-01-2012, 10:16 PM
It looks like Jono has given up the ghost and conceded the tithing argument to AC ...

Adamski
19-01-2012, 11:22 PM
It looks like Jono has given up the ghost and conceded the tithing argument to AC ...
I very much doubt it! As both of you are (former) Queenslanders (and indeed Logan CC ites) , I guess you can give each other time to fit this debate in with the demands of life.

antichrist
20-01-2012, 10:11 AM
I very much doubt it! As both of you are (former) Queenslanders (and indeed Logan CC ites) , I guess you can give each other time to fit this debate in with the demands of life.

well someone was able to create the world and have a nap in 7 days -but looking at another way we are still waiting 2000 years for JC to return we should not expect Jono in a hurry

Capablanca-Fan
21-01-2012, 02:04 PM
Except that 50 percent (less in Australia) is the marginal tax rate, rather than the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for the majority of Australians is below that 23 percent and a third percent tax rate that you're so wonderfully clever for knowing about.
Add in the 10% GST on everything and we put it up high.


Of course, even if some people do have higher effective tax rates (although I don't see provision for tax deductions or indeed for accountants that can bring the tax rate down well below the abovementioned figure, you are no longer arguing about the principle of taxation, but merely arguing about the price.
Typical leftard straw man. Taxation has its place, but only for the legtimate law-and-order functions of government, not to distribute wealth to politically favoured groups.


I'm not advocating for a theocracy and I doubt AC is either. I merely point out that the Torah makes provision for a safety net for the poor.
A safety net that involved work for the recipients for the most part, not like today's bloated bureaucracy that pays people to do nothing or to have kids out of wedlock.


The Torah does not make tithes optional and in fact does proscribe a bureacracy, effectively speaking.
A religious one, that Christophobes like you and AC wouldn't like.


Again, it is mandated that the owners are deprived of the fruits of their labour and their private property rights. How does that fit in with your capitalist ideals?
You mean, your socialistic straw man attack.


I never said it did. Indeed I never even mentioned Acts 5.
I'm surprised. It's a common spoof text by the churchian left.


You can't explain away the comprehensive bureaucracy and the broad safety net envisaged in the Torah by appealing to unrelated proof texts. You haven't turned Marcionite on me, have you, Jono? You still believe that the edicts in the Torah are divinely mandated, don't you?
Certainly: to the signatories of the Sinaitic Covenant (http://creation.com/hoax-testimony-hoax-endorsement).


Ahh, so that's your proof text for the rescue of Goldman Sachs, is it?
Who says I supported that? They are certainly very Dem-leaning. As I said, leftardism is all about taking money from some citizens and giving it to politically favoured groups, whether layabouts or incompetent financiers.


EDIT: Before you engage on some kind of rant about the banks owning the Democrats, let me just state two things: Firstly, that the banks have an unfortunate strangehold over Democrats and Republicans alike and that both sides are responsible
It's ironic that the Dems are slamming "fat cats", yet far more donated to Dems.


and that secondly, my comment was merely in jest considering your reference to bailing out the churches. Let's focus on your disregard of the Torah and not get drawn down tangents.
The debate about the application of the Mosaic Law after the death of Christ is beyond you.

Goughfather
21-01-2012, 11:53 PM
Add in the 10% GST on everything and we put it up high.

Except of course that you neglected to take into consideration the fact that the Torah makes no provision for tax deductions. Mitt Romney, for instance estimates that he pays around 15 percent tax. You also haven't taken into consideration the not insignificant percentage of produce taxed through the requirement that the edges be left for the poor and that no second passes could be made.


Typical leftard straw man. Taxation has its place, but only for the legtimate law-and-order functions of government, not to distribute wealth to politically favoured groups.

You mean like Wall Street and big oil? Even someone as relentlessly dull as yourself could not be referring to those living below the poverty line.


A safety net that involved work for the recipients for the most part, not like today's bloated bureaucracy that pays people to do nothing or to have kids out of wedlock.

Leaving aside your own strawperson, the commandment relating to the gleaning of the fields is but one text. Deuteronomy 26:12 states that particular tithes will be given to the poor rather than merely left on the ground for the poor to pick up:

When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.


A religious one, that Christophobes like you and AC wouldn't like.

I quite like Christ, actually. It's the charlatans who invoke his name for personal and financial profit such as yourself I have a problem with.



You mean, your socialistic straw man attack.

Not at all. The produce of the field is a product of the owner's capital investment and hard work. They've either done the hard work sowing themselves or paid others to do it from their own money. And here this verse in Exodus says not only that you are not entitled to the entire fruit of your labour, but that you have to share it with the poor. Imagine trying to establish something like that today. If someone tried gleaning someone's fields today, they would be charged with trespass.

This commandment suggests that one is not entitled as of right to the fruits of their labour and means that their private property is no longer inviolable. Try to respond more carefully to my argument on your second attempt.


Certainly: to the signatories of the Sinaitic Covenant (http://creation.com/hoax-testimony-hoax-endorsement).

Predictably, you miss the point. For those in the slow lane such as yourself I even pointed out that whether regulations like tithing applied to people today was a moot point. The point is, that if you believe in the God-inspired nature of the Bible, you would have to concede that regulations relating to tithing and poor were written by God himself. And if they were written by God himself, then the broad social safety net for the poor found in the Torah could not have been something immoral or economically counterproductive, could they? In this respect, the edicts of the Torah really do raise significant questions about your economic model.

Capablanca-Fan
22-01-2012, 12:47 AM
Except of course that you neglected to take into consideration the fact that the Torah makes no provision for tax deductions. Mitt Romney, for instance estimates that he pays around 15 percent tax.
A lot of his earnings would be in capital gains, on profits made on investments made (with after-tax dollars) averaged over many years; and dividends, which unlike Australia, are taxed twice, so in reality this is on top of the American 35% corporate tax rate.

But if you really want something like the Torah, you will need something like the Levitical Priesthood. I can't see AC wanting a state-funded church for example, and neither do I. But for a Torah-like system, it would be priests or a church that would take care of the welfare, not a secular bloated bureaucracy.


You also haven't taken into consideration the not insignificant percentage of produce taxed through the requirement that the edges be left for the poor and that no second passes could be made.
Not mentioning something doesn't mean I haven't considered it. It actually supports my point: the poor had to do the work at gathering the edges and gleaning after the first pass.


You mean like Wall Street and big oil? Even someone as relentlessly dull as yourself could not be referring to those living below the poverty line.
I've had these arguments with others on Chess Chat, and can't be bothered to repeat them to leftard lawyer types like you. No, these should not be subsidised either, and same with farmers and ethanol.


Leaving aside your own strawperson, the commandment relating to the gleaning of the fields is but one text. Deuteronomy 26:12 states that particular tithes will be given to the poor rather than merely left on the ground for the poor to pick up:

When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.
Here again, the Levitical Priesthood is mentioned. It also mandates direct personal giving, not giving to a bloated leftard government bureaucracy that passes on only about 25% to the poor. It is no accident that churches, before the rise of welfare, were at the forefront of helping the poor and sick.


I quite like Christ, actually.
You don't show it, given your contempt for Scripture which He said "cannot be broken", as well as your alliance with village atheopaths like AC.


It's the charlatans who invoke his name for personal and financial profit such as yourself I have a problem with.
Yes, lots of profit for me, which explains my private jet, mansion and yacht. Oh wait, I don't have those. Rather, lawyer types are the ones who profit from people's misery, especially here in the US where vexatious litigation is a Democrat sacrament, and enriches lawyers at the expense of consumers.


Not at all. The produce of the field is a product of the owner's capital investment and hard work. They've either done the hard work sowing themselves or paid others to do it from their own money. And here this verse in Exodus says not only that you are not entitled to the entire fruit of your labour, but that you have to share it with the poor. Imagine trying to establish something like that today. If someone tried gleaning someone's fields today, they would be charged with trespass.
Once again, if you want the Torah, the priesthood goes with it (Hebrews 7:12).


This commandment suggests that one is not entitled as of right to the fruits of their labour and means that their private property is no longer inviolable. Try to respond more carefully to my argument on your second attempt.
Try not to knock down straw men, although if leftards dispensed with straw men, envy mongering, and double standards, there would be nothing left.

While there were mandates to help the poor directly, this was a small part of the overall theme even in the Decalogue that people had private property that others should neither steal nor covet. Leftardism is all about demagoguing the mobs to covet, and so that the mobs will give the demagogues the power to steal.


Predictably, you miss the point. For those in the slow lane such as yourself I even pointed out that whether regulations like tithing applied to people today was a moot point.
Rubbish: it was AC's whole point in bringing it up!


The point is, that if you believe in the God-inspired nature of the Bible, you would have to concede that regulations relating to tithing and poor were written by God himself.
Nothing to concede: I readily affirm that.


And if they were written by God himself, then the broad social safety net for the poor found in the Torah could not have been something immoral or economically counterproductive, could they? In this respect, the edicts of the Torah really do raise significant questions about your economic model.
Not at all, since the Torah is more like the conservative views of private charity and helping the poor help themselves. It is nothing like the leftard view of massive confiscation from the most productive by government, which passes on only a small fraction to the genuinely needy.

Goughfather
22-01-2012, 11:36 PM
But if you really want something like the Torah, you will need something like the Levitical Priesthood. I can't see AC wanting a state-funded church for example, and neither do I. But for a Torah-like system, it would be priests or a church that would take care of the welfare, not a secular bloated bureaucracy.

You have not done anything to establish this premise. Can you please explain to me why a Levitical Priesthood would be a necessary pre-condition to those elements of the Torah which we have already discussed?

Of course, even if your premise was correct, you would have to concede that there are some circumstances in this broad safety net for the poor, including an abrogation of private property rights in some circumstances is workable.


Not mentioning something doesn't mean I haven't considered it. It actually supports my point: the poor had to do the work at gathering the edges and gleaning after the first pass.

No, your point was that the tax rate of 50 percent made the taxation of the Torah look paltry by the comparison. I've blown this out of the water by pointing to three things: firstly, that so-called 50 percent is the marginal and not the effective tax rate, secondly, that unlike the current tax regime which enables many to pay a tax rate of fifteen percent and below through tax deductions and other tax breaks, the Torah had no provision for tax deductions and thirdly, that the requirement that people could only pass over their land once and that they were required to leave the edges for the poor added to the tax impost upon the people involved.


Here again, the Levitical Priesthood is mentioned. It also mandates direct personal giving, not giving to a bloated leftard government bureaucracy that passes on only about 25% to the poor.

They would pass on much more if it was not for wasteful military spending, so I'd glad you accept this point.

The key word here is "mandated". This is the equivalent to taking money by force.



Try not to knock down straw men, although if leftards dispensed with straw men, envy mongering, and double standards, there would be nothing left.

Dodging the question again I see. Show me how the requirement to allow the poor to come onto your land and take what they need is not an abrogation of the sanctity of private property rights, since you call my argument a straw man.


While there were mandates to help the poor directly, this was a small part of the overall theme even in the Decalogue that people had private property that others should neither steal nor covet. Leftardism is all about demagoguing the mobs to covet, and so that the mobs will give the demagogues the power to steal.

Except that these mandates can no longer be considered to be charity once they become divine edict enforceable by law.


Not at all, since the Torah is more like the conservative views of private charity and helping the poor help themselves.

Except that it is not, as I've demonstrated above.


It is nothing like the leftard view of massive confiscation from the most productive by government, which passes on only a small fraction to the genuinely needy.

And again, I've explained that if significant cuts to wasteful military spending were made, we would have more money to spend on those living below the poverty line.

Anyway, it is pleasing to see that you believe that more should be spent on the genuinely needy - perhaps you are learning, after all.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2012, 07:53 AM
You have not done anything to establish this premise. Can you please explain to me why a Levitical Priesthood would be a necessary pre-condition to those elements of the Torah which we have already discussed?
Hebrews 7:12:

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.


Of course, even if your premise was correct, you would have to concede that there are some circumstances in this broad safety net for the poor, including an abrogation of private property rights in some circumstances is workable.
This told me nothing I didn't know already. Note that even Milton Friedman saw the need for a safety net, despite your absurd caricature. But what churchian leftards must find is evidence that the government should confiscate wealth, take its 75% commission, and distribute to the "poor" which in practice means politically favored groups.


No, your point was that the tax rate of 50 percent made the taxation of the Torah look paltry by the comparison. I've blown this out of the water by pointing to three things: firstly, that so-called 50 percent is the marginal and not the effective tax rate,
Yet effective tax rate asymptotically approaches the marginal rate as income increases. Marginal rate is also the most important thing when considering extra work, capital gains etc.


secondly, that unlike the current tax regime which enables many to pay a tax rate of fifteen percent and below through tax deductions and other tax breaks,
"Breaks" like dividend imputation simply avoid the iniquitous double taxation that America has.


the Torah had no provision for tax deductions and thirdly, that the requirement that people could only pass over their land once and that they were required to leave the edges for the poor added to the tax impost upon the people involved.
But note: the poor had to come and get it. The government didn't get it and distribute while the poor sat on their arses.


They would pass on much more if it was not for wasteful military spending, so I'd glad you accept this point.
This has nothing to do with the military, a proper function of the government. Rather, it is that only about 25% earmarked for welfare goes to the poor, while the rest supports the bureaucracies and programs. An early Thomas Sowell column pointed out (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell103098.asp):


MY FELLOW-ECONOMIST WALTER WILLIAMS has for years kept track of how much money it would take to lift every American man, woman and child in poverty above the official poverty level. That sum has consistently been some fraction of the money actually spent in "anti-poverty" programs. In other words, if you gave every poor person enough money to stop being poor, that would cost a fraction of what our welfare state programs and bureaucracies cost.

Obviously, a lot of anti-poverty money is going to people who are not poor. There are whole classes of people who live off the poor -- or rather, off the vast sums of money that are poured out from the public treasury and private philanthropy, in hopes of helping the poor.


Show me how the requirement to allow the poor to come onto your land and take what they need is not an abrogation of the sanctity of private property rights, since you call my argument a straw man.
It's only an abrogation of a totally absolute property rights, a typical leftard straw man about capitalism. But churchian leftards have to deflect, because there is just no parallel for bloated government welfare bureaucracies.


Except that these mandates can no longer be considered to be charity once they become divine edict enforceable by law.
Indeed not, but the Bible encourages charitable giving above that. So it's no accident that religious conservatives are the most generous with their own money (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity). Leftards are generous only with other people's money. Case in point (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2012/01/24/the_rich_and_the_generous):


Fox News points out that Mitt Romney gave about 15% of his income to charity, compared to President Obama's 1% and Joe Biden's $369.

Certainly, it's true that the Romneys made more than the Obamas or the Bidens. Even so, the disparity perhaps points up one of the key differences between Republicans and Democrats. Could it be that when one depends on Big Government to "take care" of people, one feels less personal responsibility to give oneself? As as been reported (and even conceded by liberals like The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof), liberals do indeed tend to be less generous with their own money that their counterparts on the other side of the aisle.

The contrast is revealing. In one model, the giving is voluntary. In the other, government extracts money via the IRS, and "spreads the wealth around" as politicians deem fit.


Anyway, it is pleasing to see that you believe that more should be spent on the genuinely needy - perhaps you are learning, after all.
Sure, spending our own money, not other people's.

antichrist
25-01-2012, 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by Goughfather
Anyway, it is pleasing to see that you believe that more should be spent on the genuinely needy - perhaps you are learning, after all.

Jono
Sure, spending our own money, not other people's.
__________________

AC
so it there is insufficient resources donated to the poor then they should suffer accordingly?

Or according to the Bible BP should leave 10% of their oil in the ground for the poor to harvest themselves or representatives of theirs. Farmers should be allocating 10% of their farms to the poor, did they ever do this for the native Americans who they killed and stole the land from?

When will white America return the country to their rightful owners - the natives? Isn't that covered in the Ten Big Commandments somewhere?

Capablanca-Fan
27-01-2012, 05:16 AM
Five basic points that all leftards should consider, whether churchian ones like GF or atheopathic ones like AC:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

antichrist
27-01-2012, 10:19 AM
Five basic points that all leftards should consider, whether churchian ones like GF or atheopathic ones like AC:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

didn't Jesus say to the Apostles to give away everything to the poor and to follow him? He did not say to have a garage sale or e-bay

Capablanca-Fan
28-01-2012, 02:12 AM
didn't Jesus say to the Apostles to give away everything to the poor and to follow him?
No, he told one man who idolized his wealth to do that. He did not tell other wealthy men, such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, or Zacchaeus, to do that. Jesus also didn't tell that one man to give his money to the government, so politicians can dish it out in return for favours.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2012, 01:00 PM
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Trivially false at least in the case of inheritance, including inheritance tax. A person can receive something without working for it if another worked for it without spending it - or if another received it without working for it in the first place.

antichrist
28-01-2012, 01:07 PM
No, he told one man who idolized his wealth to do that. He did not tell other wealthy men, such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, or Zacchaeus, to do that. Jesus also didn't tell that one man to give his money to the government, so politicians can dish it out in return for favours.

But if Caesar imposed taxes would not they be allowable by "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's""?
And was not this represented by a coin and not a tenth of your farm paddock?

antichrist
28-01-2012, 01:09 PM
AC
so it there is insufficient resources donated to the poor then they should suffer accordingly?

Or according to the Bible BP should leave 10% of their oil in the ground for the poor to harvest themselves or representatives of theirs. Farmers should be allocating 10% of their farms to the poor, did they ever do this for the native Americans who they killed and stole the land from?

When will white America return the country to their rightful owners - the natives? Isn't that covered in the Ten Big Commandments somewhere?

Goughfather
29-01-2012, 04:40 PM
Hebrews 7:12:

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

I recognise that context is not CMI's strong point, but you could have at least read the rest of Hebrews 7 before making this response. It is clear that Hebrews 7 is talking about the holiness/purity code and the sacrificial system under the Torah. There is no suggestion that the taxation commitments under the Torah would be unworkable under another administrative structure.


This told me nothing I didn't know already. Note that even Milton Friedman saw the need for a safety net, despite your absurd caricature. But what churchian leftards must find is evidence that the government should confiscate wealth, take its 75% commission, and distribute to the "poor" which in practice means politically favored groups.

By all means, to avoid any so-called "caricatures" in the future, please outline your understanding of a broad social safety net for the poor and an abrogation of private property rights you find acceptable.


Yet effective tax rate asymptotically approaches the marginal rate as income increases. Marginal rate is also the most important thing when considering extra work, capital gains etc.


"Breaks" like dividend imputation simply avoid the iniquitous double taxation that America has.

To cut a long story short, Mitt Romney paid between 13 and 15 percent tax on $21.7 million of newly acquired income. Much less than the 23 and a third percent flat tax that the God-breathed Torah proscribed for the nation of Israel.


But note: the poor had to come and get it. The government didn't get it and distribute while the poor sat on their arses.

Non-sequitur, given that my point was that these edicts imposed additional tax obligations upon landowners.

But note: that while one edict gives the poor an opportunity to collect the food they need, another stipulates that tithes be brought directly to the poor. Obviously when one lives in a relatively small community, this is workable. This is not so easy to administer if you live in a community of over 300 million people.


It's only an abrogation of a totally absolute property rights, a typical leftard straw man about capitalism.

By all means, feel free to outline in detail what you regard to be an acceptable abrogation of property rights, rather than quite deceitfully alleging a strawperson without providing further substantiation.

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2012, 02:23 AM
I recognise that context is not CMI's strong point,
As if a leftard lawyer-type would know. As I documented in my best-selling book Refuting Compromise (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-575), CMI's understanding of the context of Genesis 1–is the same as that of the vast majority of Church Fathers who discussed it, Thomas Aquinas, all the Reformers. It's those who dissent who are introducing novel eisegesis by imposing ideas from outside the text.


but you could have at least read the rest of Hebrews 7 before making this response. It is clear that Hebrews 7 is talking about the holiness/purity code and the sacrificial system under the Torah. There is no suggestion that the taxation commitments under the Torah would be unworkable under another administrative structure.
Read it in context of the chapter and the next two: the Mosaic Law is a unity, and the Levitical Priesthood is an essential part.


By all means, to avoid any so-called "caricatures" in the future, please outline your understanding of a broad social safety net for the poor and an abrogation of private property rights you find acceptable.
Already done on other threads, advocating the Liberty and Democracy Party's 30/30 plan (http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1164&Itemid=290). Do your own legwork.

What leftards need to do is prove that the government should confiscate a third of people's wealth, and distribute it as politicians deem expedient. Nothing biblical about the government distributing only about a quarter of money earmarked for "welfare" to the needy, while taking three quarters to bloat their bureaucracies.


To cut a long story short, Mitt Romney paid between 13 and 15 percent tax on $21.7 million of newly acquired income. Much less than the 23 and a third percent flat tax that the God-breathed Torah proscribed for the nation of Israel.
But since we are not in that theocratic state, where part of that funded the Levitical Priesthood, it doesn't apply. If you want it to apply, then bring back that priesthood. In any case, a lot of that was dividends, which have already been taxed at the corporate rate of 35%. The Yanx don't have our dividend imputation system, the fools, but the lower rate at least partly acknowledges the double taxation. When that is taken into account, Romney paid far more than the 23%.

Romney also gave 15% to charity, Obamov gave 1% (http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15) until he started to run for President, when he gave 5–6%, and Biden and alGore gave a fraction of 1% (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2091292/Mitt-Romney-gave-millions-charity-Joe-Biden-gave-369.html).


But note: that while one edict gives the poor an opportunity to collect the food they need, another stipulates that tithes be brought directly to the poor.
Which one are you talking about? And notice, "directly to the poor", "indirectly via a bloated government bureaucracy which takes a 75% cut".


Obviously when one lives in a relatively small community, this is workable.
And it always has been, since the best charities are often the local ones, since they are in the best position to know whether someone deserves a helping hand or boot in the bum.


This is not so easy to administer if you live in a community of over 300 million people.
That's what the Levitical Priesthood did, not the secular government. And historically in America, before the rise of the New Deal, it didn't need to be the wider community because charity was handled more locally. Libertarian columnist and TV host John Stossel writes (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/stossel082405.php3):


Now I realize that private charity would do much more — if government hadn't crowded it out. In the 1920s — the last decade before the Roosevelt administration launched its campaign to federalize nearly everything — 30 percent of American men belonged to mutual aid societies, groups of people with similar backgrounds who banded together to help members in trouble. They were especially common among minorities.
Mutual aid societies paid for doctors, built orphanages and cooked for the poor. Neighbors knew best what neighbors needed. They were better at making judgments about who needs a handout and who needed a kick in the rear. They helped the helpless, but administered tough love to the rest. They taught self-sufficiency.

It should also be obvious that one can be generous only with voluntary donations of one's own money. Leftards like GF don't really support charity, because they are "generous" only with other people's money, acquired by force.

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2012, 12:50 PM
Obama Says Jesus Would Support Taxing the Rich (http://godfatherpolitics.com/3501/obama-says-jesus-would-support-taxing-the-rich/)
Gary DeMar, 3 February 2012

There is not a single word in the Bible that directs the State to confiscate money from the rich to enlarge the power and authority of civil government. Governments canít follow the Golden Rule. Government doesnít have any money to be gracious with. You canít love your neighbor with someone elseís money. If I stole money from a rich person and gave it to a poor person, I would not be following the Golden Rule. President Obama wants to be benevolent with someone elseís money.

In biblical terms, the State is a minister of justice not a dispenser of benevolence (Rom. 13:1Ė4).

Jesus challenges the Rich Young Ruler to give his money to the poor not to Rome.

Ö

Jesus was a Jew. There was no income tax under the Old Covenant. A sign of civil tyranny was a ten percent tax (1 Sam. 8). Rome heavily taxed its citizens and subjects. Is the President saying that heís a modern-day Caesar and our government is like that of Rome? He may not be saying it, but thatís what itís become.

Gleaning is the closest thing the Bible comes to in requiring the prosperous to help the poor (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:19-21.). But gleaning is hard work. The owners of fields, vineyards, or orchards were not required to harvest the leftover grain. If the poor wanted to eat, they had to work for it. Paul most likely had these passages in mind when he wrote to the Thessalonians, ďDonít you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? ĎIf you donít work, you donít eatíĒ (2 Thess. 3:10).

Wealth redistribution today is punitive; itís about punishing the rich, not helping the poor. The rich donít hoard their money. They loan it, invest it, and spend it. Itís these actions that help the less prosperous.

Government instituted poverty programs have only created more poor people, making them dependent on the State and less human.

Desmond
06-02-2012, 06:51 PM
my best-selling book Refuting Compromise (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-575)Best-selling? Does it have an alternate title? I can't seem to find it in the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books).

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2012, 01:01 AM
Best-selling? Does it have an alternate title? I can't seem to find it in the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books).
OK, so what qualifies as "best-selling"? How long is a piece of string? With about 100,000 copies, it is up with many of the Australian books listed in the SHM column Bookmarks (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/bookmarks-20120113-1pywr.html) with such a term:


MATTHEW Reilly's enduring popularity was illustrated by his latest novel, Scarecrow and the Army of Thieves, finishing the year top of the fiction charts and as the best-selling Australian book (124,000), ahead of Di Morrissey's The Opal Desert (92,000). The top-10 Australian books were: 1. Scarecrow and the Army of Thieves, Matthew Reilly; 2. The Opal Desert, Di Morrissey; 3. Simple Dinners, Donna Hay, 78,000; 4. The Happiest Refugee, Anh Do, 71,000; 5. Caleb's Crossing, Geraldine Brooks, 66,000; 6. Fast, Fresh, Simple, Donna Hay, 59,000; 7. Lola's Secret, Monica McInerney, 59,000; 8. Losing the Last 5 Kilos, Michelle Bridges, 58,000; 9. Darren Lockyer, Darren Lockyer and Dan Koch, 57,000; 10. 4 Ingredients Kids, Kim McCosker and Rachael Bermingham, 51,000.

My first book Refuting Evolution (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-110) has over 500,000.

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2012, 01:03 AM
Leftist compassion at work: generosity with other people's money.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2012, 01:07 AM
How long is a piece of string? With about 100,000 copies, it is up with many of the Australian books listed in the SHM column Bookmarks (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/bookmarks-20120113-1pywr.html) with such a term:

Those books are listed on the basis of sales in a single year within Australia, not total sales worldwide over any period of time. As such it doesn't sound like you're comparing like with like.

Desmond
07-02-2012, 05:25 PM
OK, so what qualifies as "best-selling"? Published in a list, for example in the NYT list, would mean you could call it a "NYT bestseller". Just calling it a bestseller without context just smacks of empty posturing. 100,000 copies sold is certainly an accomplishment but does not make it a bestseller. Why not just call it what it is.

Incidently is it 100,000 copies actually sold or just in circulation or something?

Patrick Byrom
07-02-2012, 08:05 PM
According to Amazon, "Refuting Compromise" is ranked at about #486 000, although some of Jono's other books are doing much better, ranked around 100 000.
For comparison, "The God Delusion" is ranked #616.

antichrist
07-02-2012, 08:31 PM
According to Amazon, "Refuting Compromise" is ranked at about #486 000, although some of Jono's other books are doing much better, ranked around 100 000.
For comparison, "The God Delusion" is ranked #616.

so you are saying that Jono's book is only 485,384 places behind God Delusion - well the world is finally waking up. thanks for that.

But if listed in SMH's bestsellers they would be in different divisions - fiction and non fiction

antichrist
07-02-2012, 09:53 PM
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=84

Saint Matthew the Tax Collector, to remind us of the price of civilization.



St. Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, is the author of the first Gospel. This has been the constant tradition of the Church and is confirmed by the Gospel itself. He was the son of Alpheus and was called to be an Apostle while sitting in the tax collectors place at Capernaum. Before his conversion he was a publican, i.e., a tax collector by profession. He is to be identified with the "Levi" of Mark and Luke.


Early life

Matthew was a first century Galilean (presumably born in Galilee, which was not part of Judea or the Roman Iudaea province) and the son of Alpheus.[5] During the Roman occupation (which began in 63 BC with the conquest of Pompey), Matthew collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee. His tax office was located in Capernaum. Jews who became rich in such a fashion were despised and considered outcasts. However, as a tax collector he would have been literate in Aramaic and Greek.[2][9][10][11][12]

It was in this setting, near what is today Almagor, that Jesus called Matthew to be one of the Twelve Disciples. After his call, Matthew invited Jesus home for a feast. On seeing this, the Scribes and the Pharisees criticized Jesus for eating with tax collectors and sinners. This prompted Jesus to answer, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17)

Matthew's Ministry

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2012, 03:29 AM
According to Amazon, "Refuting Compromise" is ranked at about #486 000, although some of Jono's other books are doing much better, ranked around 100 000.
For comparison, "The God Delusion" is ranked #616.
Most of our books are not sold via Amazon, but via our own webstores, other bookstores, conferences etc. By contrast, my colleague's book Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection has not sold as well as Refuting Evolution, but actually reached the top 50 on Amazon for a while.

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2012, 03:31 AM
Published in a list, for example in the NYT list, would mean you could call it a "NYT bestseller". Just calling it a bestseller without context just smacks of empty posturing. 100,000 copies sold is certainly an accomplishment but does not make it a bestseller. Why not just call it what it is.
I've seen other Australian books called "best-sellers" with a fraction of that.

Rincewind
08-02-2012, 09:53 AM
I've seen other Australian books called "best-sellers" with a fraction of that.

Surely you've learnt by now that you shouldn't believe your own hype.

Capablanca-Fan
09-02-2012, 02:00 AM
I told a leftard that he should get a life. He replied, "But who'll pay for it?"

Desmond
09-02-2012, 07:06 AM
I told a leftard that he should get a life. He replied, "But who'll pay for it?"
Did you tell him that your life was the best compared to his? :hmm:

antichrist
09-02-2012, 11:12 AM
I told a leftard that he should get a life. He replied, "But who'll pay for it?"
but doesn't it say in the Bible somewhere that Jesus said something like don't worry about jobs or planting etc that that will look after itself or God will supply?

Rincewind
09-02-2012, 11:22 AM
but doesn't it say in the Bible somewhere that Jesus said something like don't worry about jobs or planting etc that that will look after itself or God will supply?

Not exactly. It sounds like you are talking about Matthew 6:24-34. It doesn't say you shouldn't have a job just that you shouldn't worry about tomorrow, the worries of today are sufficient.

antichrist
09-02-2012, 11:33 AM
Not exactly. It sounds like you are talking about Matthew 6:24-34. It doesn't say you shouldn't have a job just that you shouldn't worry about tomorrow, the worries of today are sufficient.

Not really good advice coz I know in mountains of Lebanon where heavy snow every winter, they must preserve food in summer to see them over winter when snow bound and nothing grows. Luckily they did not take Bible seriously.

Maybe coz the OT Scriptures come from further west than Holy Land they are not in tune with Holy Land environment. Sort of proves where their land rights should really be.

Rincewind
09-02-2012, 11:45 AM
Maybe coz the OT Scriptures come from further west than Holy Land they are not in tune with Holy Land environment.

Matthew is NT.

antichrist
09-02-2012, 11:54 AM
Matthew is NT.

My grandmother would have staightened him out quick smart - no bludgers in her camp.

The apostles fishing tactics seemed to be suited for the wrong river as well.