The 8th Commandment

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
every time an american uses the term "socialist" as an insult, i laugh.

As you should. I do too.

Originally posted by sumydid
I recently received my monthly Church publication. The article I read was written Dr. RC Sproul - a brilliant mind indeed. Normally RC steers clear of controversy, but this time, I guess considering the state of affairs here in the USA, he couldn't resist weighing in on a hot topic.

To start off, he established the 8th Commandment. This Commandment is ... what he's saying is obvious.

Christians: Is he wrong? And if so, why?

I dunno, there was this guy, hmmm, what what his name again? Oh, yeah, Jesus...

who said

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

The tax code is a joke. There are so many loopholes that the percentages are meaningless to the rich. And people actually buy into the lie that it's progressive when it's actually regressive. It's hilarious.

Originally posted by sumydid
I recently received my monthly Church publication. The article I read was written Dr. RC Sproul - a brilliant mind indeed. Normally RC steers clear of controversy, but this time, I guess considering the state of affairs here in the USA, he couldn't resist weighing in on a hot topic.

To start off, he established the 8th Commandment. This Commandment is ...[text shortened]... ... what he's saying is obvious.

Christians: Is he wrong? And if so, why?

The system is wasteful of our tax dollars. That is a sin and is an 8th Commandment breach IMO.

Other comments on other poster's posts:

Suzi... neighbour?? We're English now?? Pip pip cheerio old gal 😛 🙂

FMF top of your game ATM I'll wait until your biorhythms are down.

Bob, good point

Z..whatever, thank you Bela Lugosi



😞

Originally posted by sumydid
Atheists/Skeptics are welcome to weigh in on this matter, but, I would prefer you keep your arguments in favor or not in favor, restricted to the legal precedent as far as the Commandment is concerned. Forget that you don't like Christian Commandments for a second, and just look at this as a legal brief. Legal briefs usually follow what attorneys call IRAC ...[text shortened]... e argument is framed correctly, but I personally and morally don't agree with it."

"The issue is, "Is voting a higher tax for someone else that you don't vote for yourself acceptable?"

No it's not. But under the US progressive tax system, the higher tax rate that is applied to higher income, applies to everyone. Anyone whose income is higher, pays the higher tax rate on that higher income, whether it is you or me or the other guy (neglecting such things as lower rates on capital gains). If I vote for this kind of progressive tax system, I am voting to pay that higher tax rate on the amounts that exceed stated limits, if and when I earn that higher income, and, in fact, I do pay at higher rates than the average taxpayer. You need to restate your question if you want it to apply to the real world.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How about this earlier part of Romans 13?

Romans 13 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, [b]whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

[/b]

Is sunny rebelling? He is merely questioning the powers that be, not defying them. Unless sunny is not paying his taxes, like men Obama appointed to office like Geithner, he has not broken any laws of any kind, including Bilblical ones.

I believe that the greatest sin being evoked is to covet. Citizens are told that the rich need to pay "their fair share", whatever that means. All that I know is that pitting citizen against citizen in this manner causes people to covet those who have more. In their mind, if more is taken from the rich more will be given to them. This is an absurd notion, especially with a government that runs trilliion plus dollar deficits every year. Government could care less how much money is coming in, they will spend a set dollar amount anyway. So it all comes down to punishing the wealthy in my view. That is, in rhetoric only. Most of what we hear is merely demagoguery. The democrats have no intention of paying higher taxes. Their only goal is political power and the only way to accomplish this is the demonization of the GOP.

Of course, what boggles my mind is how Romney can say with a smiling face that paying a tax rate of only 13% is "fair". How is that fair? In fact, what is "fair"? I think it the main reason he lost the election. As has been said, the tax code is a joke and favors the rich and always will, despite what rherotic you may hear to the contrary.

Originally posted by whodey
Is sunny rebelling? He is merely questioning the powers that be, not defying them. Unless sunny is not paying his taxes, like men Obama appointed to office like Geithner, he has not broken any laws of any kind, including Bilblical ones.

I believe that the greatest sin being evoked is to covet. Citizens are told that the rich need to pay "their fair shar ...[text shortened]... e and favors the rich and always will, despite what rherotic you may hear to the contrary.

As long as humans are in charge of this world, nothing is going to ever be fair. People do not receive fair pay for their work and they will not be taxed fair either. Those are some of the facts of life. Whinnning about it is not going to change it.

Originally posted by FMF
I notice you left the word "rate" out of your encapsulation of 'the isue' and 'the rule'. Would you say a completely flat tax - i.e. everyone pays the same amount of money - like a set fee - is the most "moral" kind of tax?

A flat tax RATE would be fair in my mind -- a lot of people are pushing for it. 2 or 3 major presidential candidates in recent years, had a flat tax rate as part of their platform.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
every time an american uses the term "socialist" as an insult, i laugh.

I use the term in reference to Obama because it's true. It's not an insult. It's just a fact.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Everyone's got an angle.

His is using the Bible to complain about paying his fair share of taxes.

Yes, he's wrong. Obviously.

Edit: Your deeper argument would be hysterically funny if it weren't so obviously a ploy. All these things you ascribe to "socialists" have been part and parcel of the conservatives in this country since Reagan.

He's not obviously wrong. He made quite a compelling case. He's using the bible to complain about paying his fair share? You clearly have no idea what RC is all about.

Like I said, RC almost never weighs in on hot, controversial subjects. That's partly why I posted this because I was quite shocked to see him (publicly) take a side on this issue.

Now, I never meant to say that it's ALL about Obama. However, Obama is the first President in my lifetime who won a Presidency by promising to punish successful people. Sure, Democrats and Republicans alike, have established higher tax rates for one group and lower for the next. And according to RC Sproul, it's nothing more than legalized theft.

Please demonstrate where he is wrong, other than your opinion. That's why I posted the thing. Problem is, I got exactly what I hoped not to get, but nevertheless expected. I didn't get much honest, objective opinion on it. Instead I got generic replies in defense of Obama, and "RC is obviously wrong," with nothing to back it up. RC is a very, very strict person when it comes to sticking to Scripture. If he is bold enough to say different tax rates for different people is "legalized theft" and a Christian should not support this ideal otherwise they are breaking the 8th Commandment? Then you can rest assured he studied long and hard on it. He doesn't treat Scripture lightly. He's an accomplished theologian and teaches at Seminaries. He's no hack. So give him his due and demonstrate (as if it's a legal case) where he is wrong.

Originally posted by FMF in reply to Suzianne's hot-tempered rant
Are you being for real?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Originally posted by sumydid
Problem is, I got exactly what I hoped not to get, but nevertheless expected. I didn't get anyone's honest, objective opinion on it. Instead I got generic replies in defense of Obama, and "RC is obviously wrong," with nothing to back it up.

As a matter of interest, can you list the names of posters who gave you "generic replies in defense of Obama" on this thread?

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
That's crap....

You might as well say Mitt Romney loved X
because X gave more money to his campaign
than anyone else.

So in your terms your GOD would love you more
than he might love me because you gave more
money to his child abusing money grabbing priests
than I did.

What grampy said isn't crap. It's fact. And it's got nothing to do Mitt Romney and "X".

If people are going to use expletives to describe someone else's statements and opinions, wouldn't it be best if they at least had a shred of knowledge about the subject?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I dunno, there was this guy, hmmm, what what his name again? Oh, yeah, Jesus...

who said

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

Thank you! Someone is submitting an opinion and using a legal argument.

Be mindful though, that RC was careful to say Christians are obligated to pay the taxes we are told to pay. We should and do render unto our government what is legally our government's.

However, what RC is taking issue with, are the Christians who SUPPORT the lopsided tax rates (i.e. punish anyone who is successful by making them pay an exhorbitantly higher tax rate) and he calls it legalized theft. Is he wrong? I can't see where he is.

Originally posted by JS357
"The issue is, "Is voting a higher tax for someone else that you don't vote for yourself acceptable?"

No it's not. But under the US progressive tax system, the higher tax rate that is applied to higher income, applies to everyone. Anyone whose income is higher, pays the higher tax rate on that higher income, whether it is you or me or the other guy (neglect ...[text shortened]... rage taxpayer. You need to restate your question if you want it to apply to the real world.

The last tidbit where you suggest my argument "doesn't apply to the real world" was an unnecessary stab, and ruined what was otherwise a nice try at countering the argument.

Just because the higher tax rate applies to "everyone" as long as "everyone" makes a certain amount of money (in today's case Obama is punishing anyone that makes over $250k/yr) .... well that's an apples to oranges.

My argument DOES apply to the real world. Today's real world. Your argument, on the other hand, applies to a world that you conjured up, where the higher tax rate applies to "everyone" because theoretically everyone might become wealthy. Let's stick to the real world, as you seem to want to do, and understand that there are going to be a certain percentage of people that are considered wealthy, and then the rest of the people who aren't wealthy. It will always be that way... in the real world.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How about this earlier part of Romans 13?

Romans 13 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, [b]whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

[/b]

I missed this, PK and thanks for participating objectively. Seriously, thank you.

Ok, again, RC (and I) are not arguing that Christians not be subject to the governing authorities. The issue at hand, specifically, is Christians willfully voting in politicians who, as part of their platform, promise to jack up tax rates against one group and not touch the tax rates of another group.

The idea--which Obama has admitted in not so many words--is to forcibly TAKE from those making over 250k, and give the loot over to the people who are less fortunate.

That's how he built his base of constituents. People want free stuff. And evidently a whole LOT of people are foot stompin' mad that someone else has more than they do. So they emphatically pushed the "get free stuff, and stick it to the rich" button and voted Obama back into office--and by the narrowest of margins by the way.

Anyway, RC's point isn't that we should disobey the law. Instead, his point is, we Christians are breaking the 8th Commandment by voting in favor of legalized theft.

Shall we get the dictionary out and settle on the precise definition of theft, I'm wondering. That might help.