Sandman, Sorry, I did confuse you with Lakeview Greg. However, it wasn’t me but rather Jeffress who brought up the subject of Jesus and taxes., As far as I’m concerned implying, as he did, that refusing Syrian refugees is a Christian virtue is a canard of the same ilk as render unto Caesar means pay your taxes. Did you not notice that Jeffress used his claim regarding Jesus and taxes as justification for “protecting the born from terrorist (presumably Syrian terrorists) attacks.”

I would think “Christian values” would be derived from what Jesus said or did as recorded in the Gospels. I don’t believe refusing Syrian refugees is a position that can be derived from anything Jesus is reported in the Gospels to have said or done. You would have to blow the meaning of anything Jesus said or did completely out of context and outside of truth to come up with such anti-Jesus nonsense, but that is exactly what Jeffress did. And his distortion of Jesus’ statement on taxes became the grounds for refusing to admit Syrian refugees. The primary reason I no longer consider myself a Christian is because of folks like Jeffress, who in my opinion distort Jesus’ teaching and example, often to fit some statist agenda.

As for the constitution and the bill of rights, I endorse what Lysander Spooner said about them in his essay, NOT TREASON: THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY. I do know I never signed either document. How about you?

I never told you “And Jesus wanted you to be a good citizen,.” You must be thinking of someone else.
I’m talking about the subject of hypocrisy when it comes to Christian “values,” which was what the article was about.
I couldn’t care less what the Bible or Jesus says, or is purported to say about taxes or anything else. The Constitution/Bill of Rights is the law that I prefer to follow in this Country…not Biblical law.
“Refusing Syrian Refugees is a Christian Value” was the topic to speak on, not taxes.

Sandman2, I am not interested in converting you, nor am I angry at you or anyone else. I’m just trying to show the Jeffress was abusing the meaning of the story and Jesus’ words-whether or not the story is true or whether or not he actually spoke the words—in saying render unto Caesar means pay your taxes. I am hardly a “true believer” in the sense I think you mean it anymore than you are a neo-con because you came to the defense of the statist, neo-con pastor in attacking me.

Allow me to use an analogy: You just used two passages from the Bible to prove your point about Jesus. Since I wasn’t familiar with Psalm 37:25, I checked it out and your version isn’t too far off one of the three versions of the Psalm I checked, although the passage wouldn’t lead me to quite the same conclusion. But here is the point, if you had said, “Psalm 37:25 says the righteous are not forsaken, which means, In other words, support government with your taxes because they have a legitimate function, like protecting citizen,” I would have to think you were just as dishonest as the Rev. Jeffress and a neo-con to boot.

Your first comment to me included this, “And Jesus wanted you to be a good citizen, and part of being a good citizen is paying your taxes.” Were you just trying to be cute, or are you a member of Pastor. Jeffress’ congregation who believes as he does. In that statement of yours, you sound more like a true believer than I do. But please tell me, where do you stand on the primary issue: Did Jesus say pay your taxes, or did he not? Or, if you’re not a true believer, lI’ll put it this way, does the Bible say Jesus said pay your taxes or doesn’t it?

So not answering the question laid before you is considered a win in your eyes?
This is at the heart of why us clear thinking people are dismissive of true-believers like yourself.
You want me to stick to Jesus words and not others, but then you are talking about google, Nazi’s, Hitler, and Marx. I’ve not come across any of those characters in the New Testament or even the entire Bible. My “snark” would love to see where Jesus talked about them in his own words.
According to Psalms37:25, the righteous are not forsaken. If that is the case then why would Jesus last words while on the cross dying be “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” It sounds to me like he believed in the B.S. he had been perpetuating for a while and was now shocked that he wasn’t going to be saved.
When you say “Jesus own words” do you mean words written by others who claim they are Jesus words? Jesus wasn’t actually one of the Biblical authors so one can correctly assume that ANY of the so-called “quotes” from Jesus are hearsay from his friends.
Why do Bible believers wish us others to believe as they do, but, don’t appreciate it when we point out all the flaws in the book they put all there faith in?
You’re not the first person to ask us to ignore all the inconsistencies, misinterpretations, falsehoods, contradictions, ignored teachings, and sanctions of abuse and injustice and only focus on the rosy parts you don’t have to make excuses for.
Your anger shouldn’t be with me, it should be reserved for the authors who wrote all those horrible things into the Bible through the inspiration of God.

Bemused, I’d hardly put Marx in any class of great thinkers, certainly not with those others you mention. Marx got so many things wrong, particularly in his economics and his divination of the inevitable course of history. He built his economics on Smith’s and Riccardo’s erroneous theory of value, which was thoroughly refuted by the subjective theory of the value first elucidated almost simultaneously by William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, and Carl Menger. Marx’s 3rd volume of his magnum opus, DAS KAPITAL, was delayed (by him?) until after his death because the flaws in his theory weremade manifest and succinctly elaborated by Menger’s student, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, in his book entitled KARL MARX AND THE CLOSE OF HIS SYSTEM., which should have spelled the end of Marxist socialism if believers in socialism weren’t so intellectually invested in it. It is still in print. Here is what its publisher (Mises.org) says about it.

The book is introduced by the socialist Paul Sweezy, and he too tries to rescue the Marxists from the corner into which Böhm-Bawerk drives them. So this book makes for great drama, and it is a pleasure to see the Austrian come out on top despite every effort by the compiler of the book to prevent it.

The great economist takes on Karl Marx, and his fundamental failure to understand the workings of the capital market and its relationship to value. The criticism was devastating, so much so that a leading Marxist responded, and thus herein is Rudolf Hilferding’s response. It is very weak, as you will undoubtedly notice.

The book is introduced by the socialist Paul Sweezy, and he too tries to rescue the Marxists from the corner into which Böhm-Bawerk drives them. So this book makes for great drama, and it is a pleasure to see the Austrian come out on top despite every effort by the compiler of the book to prevent it.

PS, I deny being a literalist, which sounds almost as wrongheaded as fundamentalist, nor anything even close to it in my reading of the Bible. I don’t call myself an anarchist because that word has been debauched by those wannabe anarchists who embrace violence and attack anything that gets in their way(. I think of myself as a disciple (student and halting follower) of Jesus of Nazareth, and, like him, a voluntaryist, which alternatively could be described as pacifist-anarchist.
see, for example: http://voluntaryist.com/

Ned: The following link places the origin of the word “communism” in France, during the “Comune” uprising of the early 1840s (cf. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=communism). And the word refers to collective ownership as opposed to ownership by individuals. Marx’s subsequent focus on ownership by the state or government is simply based on the assumption that these entities are representative of the people, i.e. the collectivity. What practitioners actually did with the roadmap created by Marx and Engels is comparable to what has so often happened with the messages of most great thinkers, including but not limited to Christ, Mohamed, even Buddha, whose followers are not supposed to take much interest in the physical world.

In any case, the concept of “collective” ownership of property is already defined in detail in Plato, i.e. well before the word “communism” came to represent it (the concept). And it has popped up repeatedly over the millennia, often as a form of utopia (my own favorite is Thomas More).

Bemused, I wanted to respond to your comment regarding communism, which, based on my limited knowledge of the subject word was first used i, I believe. From its initial use in Marx’s theory, and in every practical implementation of a communist system, ownership of the means of production—on which communism and socialism are both based—is in theory and has been in practice vested in the state. While there have indeed been communal and communitarian voluntary societies, generally small as was the early Christian community revealed in Acts, the communist concept of state ownership of the means of production is a necessary ingredient of communism and emphatically distinguishes it from the pooling of resources and sharing in common according to need by those early Christians.

Bemused, thanks for graciously responding.

First an explanation for my unintended hypocrisy. In my intitial comment I mistakenly put my own words in quotation marks implying—accidentally—that they were Jesus’ words and doing exactly what I was chastising Jeffress for doing. My bad. But let me try again and see if I can get it right. Jeffress said, "…he (Jesus) also said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” In other words, support government with your taxes because they have a legitimate function.

My point was that Jesus neither said nor meant anything like “support your government with your taxes,” Actually, quite the opposite, rather what Jesus said is what he meant, and there is no need for “in other words” because his words are unmistakably clear and precise. He said exactly what he meant and he meant exactly what he said. He said, “Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” and he said nothing more than that, nothing less than that, nothing but that, and his words, cannot be misinterpreted by a rational mind; cannot possibly mean pay your taxes. If that was what Jesus meant, he could and would have said so. Therein lie the stark brilliance of his reply, because what he said would have been readily understood by most Jews who witnessed the incident.

Jesus’ response, “Give Caesar what is his,” requires that we know what belongs to God and Caesar respectively, or rather what Jesus thought belonged to each. And since Jesus repeatedly justified his teaching and actions by reference to Sacred Jewish Scripture, I think it is safe to say the division of property between God and Caesar was to Jesus as it is stated at least five times in Scripture, such as in Psalm 24 verse 1: “The earth is the Lord’s and everything it it,” which leaves nothing for poor old Caesar. Most Jews would not have been fooled, as those duplicitous spies were, by what Jesus said and meant, to wit: THEY (most of his listeners would have known he had told the spies to give Caesar nothing.

My understanding of Jesus’ take on taxes and human government does not depend on this one incident recorded in three of the four canon Gospels. I have consulted the Gnostic gospels as well. My understanding is based on everything he is reported to have said or done regarding taxes and tax collectors in those sources.

During the 33 years I have spent studying the Gospels, I have not, as you suggest consulted "all the versions of the Holy Bible, but primarily regarding the New Testament I have consulted many. And whenever I need to check something quickly, I usually use the Internet resource, biblegateway.com., which makes over 50 versions available on line. I often do check several versions. My favoriet is The New Living Translation, because the authors/editors must have a worldview somewhat similar to my own.

If you think I have twisted anything Jesus said or did to fit my agenda I would appreciate it if you pointed that out. I do wholeheartedly concur with a comment made by Albert Schweitzer in his THE QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS, that anyone who writes of the life of Jesus invariably reveals more about him or herself than about Jesus.

I also appreciate you calling attention to my near-invective in my comment(s). I’m a recovering snark-a-holic trying to live up to Jesus’ instructions to love my neighbor as myself, but I fall short as often as not.

P.S. The letter from Rabbi Roth is my fictional creation. It is based on an exegesis of Romans 13:1-7 by a friend of mine in NZ, although David got the ironic interpretation from someone else whose name escapes me. Unfortunately, I left out an explanatory paragraph—also fiction. Here it is:

This letter was sent by Rabbi Roth to the members of his synagogue in Stuttgart from a Nazi “labor” camp" shortly after he was arrested as an enemy of the state for his rather open condemnation of Hitler and the Nazis. The letter was, of course, opened and read before it was allowed to be sent, but given the content it received the approval of the prison-camp’s Gestpo censors.

It was seen immediately by all but one of the members of his synagogue for the irony that it was meant to be, and it led many of the members to do exactly the opposite of what the Rabbi seemed to be directing them to do, knowing the opposite is what he really wanted of them. Resistance to taxes was higher among members of his synagogue than anywhere in Germany, and many went to their deaths for resisting Hitler’s taxes. The one member who took his letter at face value was Ike Z. When the letter was read to him he took it to heart and immediately joined the Nazi Party. However, when it was discovered that he was a Jew, the Gestapo assumed he had joined in order to spy on Party members, and he was immediately shot dead.

Ajoy filled New Year to you too.

Apologies for being off-line but there was a glitch with my server.

Ned: you are sorely mistaken to assume that I wanted to “defend” Jeffress: far from it. The man’s a dispicable fool. No, I was simply taking exception to your hypocrisy: in fact, after criticising Jeffress for interpreting the Bible, you proceeded to do precisely the same thing against at taxation and the nation state. Initially, you seemed to be an anarchist using the Bible to justify your position and that tweaked my curiosity.

I’ve never felt the need nor had the obligation to learn the Bible by heart. While I agree with most of the messages of Jesus Christ, I have problems with how people twist those messages. So much of the New Testament is open to interpretation and the Old Testament contains an awful lot of stuff that is (to me) rejected outright by Jesus (all that smiting and killing and wounding and torturing. How Leviticus was retained for the “official” Bible beats me.)

Anyway, the variability of interpretations is what gave rise to the multitude of Christian sects, each and every one of which claims to possess the truth. I have no problem with that because I am a professional translator and I know for a fact that words can be interpreted in different ways. Only the author (hopefully) actually knows what he or she meant. With regard to the whole matter of religion, we’ll all of us find out the truth after passing on.

“Pastor” Jeffress is a man hell-bent on finding the bits in the Bible that support his refusal of any demonstration of brotherly love towards fellow human beings. That’s the bee in his bonnet. Yours is clearly taxation and government but I don’t think you are an anarchist but a “literalist”. May I suggest an experiment? Get yourself a copy of all the versions of the Holy Bible (Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, etc. etc.) and compare them. I had to do that during my training as a translator over 50 years ago, and it was very instructive, humbling even.

Bits and pieces:
PS: Be careful. You are bordering on invective in your last comments, especially when speaking with Sandman2. Not in keeping with the “reasonable”, “dialectic” image you conveyed in your earlier comments.

PPSS: That quotation from a Rabbi from a German concentration camp is not a very wise selection, IMO: just how “free” do you think prisoners were/are to express themselves? If YOU were told to repudiate your theories in exchange for freedom, what would you do? Not saying that happened, mind you. Just speculating.

PPPSSS: the fact that the word “communism” was first used during the XIX century does not mean that the concept did not exist before. It did (with specific but not exclusive reference to the Anabaptist sects). In reality, many ideas and concepts are given their definitive name several years later.

Please do have a very happy and prosperous 2016.

Before Rev. Jeffress or one of the other scholars here at News Hound cites Paul’s Romans 13:1-7, I thought I toss out a similar letter written by a Rabbi from a German concentration camp in 1938—before Kristallnacht!

GERMANS 13:1-7

My dear Jewish brothers and sisters,

Let every person be subject to Hitler and the governing Nazi authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and the Nazi authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Whoever resists Nazi authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For the Nazi rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the Nazi authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive the Nazis’ approval, for Hitler is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the Nazi authority does not wield the sword in vain. Hitler is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be subject to Hitler, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the Nazis are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are do, revenue to whom revenue is due. Respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Sincerely, Rabbi Benjamin Roth Sachsenhousen, Germany January 15, 1938

The similarity between Paul’s irony and Roth’s may be found in the similarity between Adolf Hitler and the Roman Emperor Nero. Hitler had Jews put in gas chambers and, it was rumored, put in ovens to make soap from their ashes. Nero was even more creative. “Nero was rumored to have had captured Christians dipped in oil and set on fire in his garden at night as a source of light. This view is based on the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio…” (Quote from Wiki) Those who fail to see the irony in Romans 13:1-7, written during the reign of Nero, are like Z, the member or Rabbi Roth’s synagogue.

Sandman2, Apparently snark, not the Bible, is your primary resource. Try a little humility, it will take you farther.

Here, fyi, is the first definition of communism you’ll get from Google: “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”

So, Mr. Sandman, if you aren’t sleeping, where do you see communism in the behavior of the early Christians? Were their assets publicly owned, which in the case of the early Christians would mean owned by Rome for the good of the entire Empire, not just themselves. Have you ever heard Jesus advocating class war or any other kind of war? When you cherry pick the Bible, at least pick something related to the discussion, and read it careefully before spouting off.. Evidently you didn’t notice that those early Christians kept their assets for themselves, not for public distribution. I suppose you would call them selfish but you shouldn’t call them communist if you’re dealing with the truth. Try again.

But here is a quote for you, and it is from the mouth of Jesus, not the Evangelist Luke.: “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?”

If you want to continue to “play the game” after your earlyh loss, please stay in context and cherry pick the words of Jesus as they carry the most weight.

I would encourage Ned to read the Bible. Many “believers” Like Ned fail to do the one thing that would help educate them about the Bible…READ IT!!!
ACTS 4:34-37 “Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need… Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”
Is that “communism” in the Bible, or is that some form of taxation used for the betterment of the community? Or maybe both?

In fairness, the Bible says that it is for this in some passages and the Bible says that it is against this in some passages.
Of course the Bible was written in “context” form so that religious zealots could take out the parts they liked and ignore the parts they don’t like.

I can play that game too…all day!

Lakeview Greg and Bemused, I started with a comment castigating Rev. Jeffress for his warped interpretation of Jesus’ words in order to defend taxation and the nation-state. You both jumped to his defense with biblical-based arguments, which you have now, and wisely I think, abandoned.

Bemused, you wrote, “Way I see it, Ned, the WHOLE OF THE HOLY BOOK expects people to behave as good citizens,” Now you seem to be arguing that the Bible isn’t to be trusted. (I am well aware of manny of the criticisms of the Bible’s validity.)

Lakeview Greg, you wrote, "And Jesus wanted you to be a good citizen, and part of being a good citizen is paying your taxes.

Given negative comments you have both expressed regarding Jeffress, I take it that you are both more concerned with defending the legitimacy of the nation-state and its use of force and coercion to collect its taxes and enforce its edicts rather than defending Pastor Jeffress or his misinterpretation of the words of Jesus. If that is so, I be happy to engage in a rational debate on the legitimacy of government as we know its and its “authority,” without reference to the Bible or Jesus, with which and with whom you both appear to be at a disadvantage.

Ned: the range of divergent views with regard to the Bible is so vast that the only possible “certainty” cannot but reflect one’s own predilections (or convictions). That’s why the bedrock of all religions is faith, not reason or logical analysis.

Anyway, you seem to trust the literal truth of the Bible as we know it to day. Do you know that the Bible is a cherry-picked selection of old writings done in Medieval times (If I remember correctly) and that many of the translations are hotly contested? Your source material is flawed from the start. The rejected bits are reportedly kept securely in the vaults of the Vatican and many scholars are waiting eagerly for Pope Francis to grant them access.

Back to you: Taxation seems to be a bee in your bonnet (possibly one of several) and you seem convinced that a pile of quotations gleaned from all over the place will suffice to bring others to share that bee. In reality, only people who already believe will want even to try to connect the various bits. Others, like myself, are fascinated by the twisty-turvy turmoil of thoughts so commonly contained in Gordian knots.

Ned, you write an awful lot but you do not say much.

Bemused, such divergent New Testament scholars as John Dominic Crossan and Raymond E. Brown, who disagree on a litany of issues, nevertheless do agree that the four canonical Gospels were all written down and “published” (shared, really) well within a century after Jesus’ death, and in the case of Mark’s gospel, most scholars date it (or in some cases date Mathew’s) as early as 70 BCE, less than 30 years after the death of Jesus.

The Golden Rule, as I understand it, didn’t originate with Jesus, but he certainly is quoted as stating it in the form most people today know it in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Here is Matthew’s version: ““So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matt 7:12. " Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31)

I’m afraid I cannot concur with your evaluation of how a voluntaryist society would implode with the first introduction of violence. If that were the case, it seems to me the statist system of the rule of law (which in reality is the rule of some men by others through force and coercion) would be far more dangerous, for under the rule of law force (violence) is institutionalized, and I believe it is axiomatic that violence begets only more of the same. So, where as you hypothetically posit the introduction of violence into Walden, there is no need to posit or speculate on whether or not there will be violence under the rule of law. The rule of law is in and of itself violent.

Forgot: Jeffress’s attitude towards Syrians tells me that he does not view them as human beings at all. Beats me how such a selfish, mean-minded person can call himself a Christian pastor.

Ned: The Gospels were written down several centuries after Christ died and they cannot but reflect the state of knowledge of the authors of that time. To dispute that is to live in neverneverland- And the texts contain some pretty mind-boggling contradictions. It’s tempting to cherry pick the bits that fit one’s purpose and that goes for anybody who claims to hold the truth. Personally, I shall wait in confidence that the Creator – if there is one – won’t hold that against me so long as I try to treat others as I would like to be treated. The fact that the Golden Rule is actually not in the Gospels does not prevent me from thinking it is the best translation of Christ’s message.

PS: Voluntary-ism is a valid survival strategy in small isolated communities but human beings are too selfish for it to work on a larger scale. Your writings remind me a lot about Waldon Two by Thoreau: an utopia that will be shattered by the very first person with a gun and a shadow to shoot at.

Bemused, rest assured that I happily welcome your criticism of my comments. The WWW wouldn’t be of nearly as valuable without such exchanges of opinion—hopefully without invective.

I certainly don’t see the Gospels as expecting people to behave as good citizens of a nation-state wherein a few folks rule the rest by force, coercion and violence. Jesus recommended entering the kingdom of God where peace on Earth may prevail in the absence of state violence. I am confident there is no dual citizenship in God’s kingdom. Do you have any evidence from the many words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels to support “the way you see it?”

There is certainly some evidence supporting a contrary conclusion. According to Luke, Ch 4, when Jesus was tempted by the devil in the wilderness the following exchange in part took place: “5 Then the devil took him up and revealed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 ‘I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them,’ the devil said, ‘because they are mine to give to anyone I please. 7 I will give it all to you if you will worship me.’8 Jesus replied, ’The Scriptures say, ‘You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’” (New Living Translation Bible)

One might argue that the devil is a notorious liar, but every good liar knows that ladling plenty of truth with one’s lies is what makes them truly deceptive. In this case, it appears the devil’s claim to authority over human kingdoms is valid, for Jesus did not dispute the claim, and furthermore, if the devil was lying his offer would not have amounted to a temptation, which is how the Gospel describes the offer. Jesus’ admonition to serve God only goes a long way to explaining why he would not endorse paying tribute to Caesar, who claimed to be “the son of the divine Augustus” on the very coin most scholars agree was the coin of the render-unto-Caesar incident.

As for your argument that without the state many of the amenities we enjoy wouldn’t be possible, that is, to me, patently ludicrous. What makes you think that force and violence are more productive of human cooperation than education, persuasion and voluntary—as opposed to forced—association? What makes you think the iron rule of law is more effective than the Golden Rule of Jesus? Your argument on these matters appears to me to be the product of indoctrination by the state, perhaps from attendance at government schools. A renowned economist, Ludwig von Mises, referred to such worship of government as Statolatry. I find it reprehensible because it amounts to the endorsement of force and violence as the only means of accomplishing beneficial objectives. I would adjure you to think outside the box of the violent status quo to contemplate what might be achieved in the absence of force and coercion. By my way of thinking voluntaryism will provide mankind with many of the great benefits long sought but never realized such as world peace, the elimination of much if not most poverty, crime, jails, and the many other negative consequences of embracing violence. I am sure all of the various amenities you think are the product of state violence would be achieved through voluntary cooperation more abundantly, cheaper and of a much higher quality.

Finally, if you are open to hearing some logical analysis of the many advantages of what is generally called “voluntaryism” over the iron rule of law and the violent nation-state, there are scholarly studies of the practicalities and advantages of voluntaryism by respected scholars to be found on the web.

Net wrote: “Where do the Gospels or any other source of Jesus’ words and deeds, say or indicate he wanted me or you or anyone else, to be a good citizen?”

Way I see it, Ned, the WHOLE OF THE HOLY BOOK expects people to behave as good citizens, i.e. responsible members of their community. I know you don’t want my opinion but you’re going to get it anyway because you came here to lecture us against interpreting the Bible and then went on to do precisely that. Do as I say, not as I do.

Try to imagine, just for a moment, what our world would be like without the amenities financed through taxation: highways, roads, bridges, streets and sidewalks; public lighting; public parks; fire and police departments; the national guard to help deal with floods, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes; not to mention sports stadia, concert halls, museums, etc. and – last but not least – egalitarian societies made possible by tax-financed, hence affordable universal education.

Without tax-funded amenities, we’d still have footpaths instead of paved roads, tents or mud houses for shelter, constant fear of passersby who might be thieves or worse, or of being vanquished by a better organised, better equipped army. Actually, there is a place where living conditions are similar: you’ll find that sort of life in Syria, Iraq, Afganistan, and other places in the Middle East.

Lakeview Greg said, “And Jesus wanted you to be a good citizen, and part of being a good citizen is paying your taxes.”

Where do the Gospels or any other source of Jesus’ words and deeds, say or indicate he wanted me or you or anyone else, to be a good citizen? Perhaps you have been listening to the preaching of the Pastor Jeffress, who seems to think Jesus was a Roman IRS agent.

Been a while since I have seen someone twist themselves into a Gordian Knot, but bless you, Ned, you have done it!

And Jesus wanted you to be a good citizen, and part of being a good citizen is paying your taxes.

Ned wrote: “… it is worse than dishonest for anyone to put their words into Jesus’ mouth, …”

Duh. Methinks you did a pretty good job of doing precisely that, Ned.

@ Jeffress: “But in fact the real, historical Jesus did urge compassion for those in need, but he also said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” In other words, support government with your taxes because they have a legitimate function, like protecting citizens.”

Jeffress may be a Christian, but he isn’t a disciple of Jesus for he obviously doesn’t know Jesus. Furthermore, it is worse than dishonest for anyone to put their words into Jesus’ mouth as if Jesus was too dense to know what he was saying and needs some statist interpreter to tell people “in other words” what Jesus’ own words mean.

Jesus meant what he said. “Give Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” means exactly what it says—give him what belongs to him, no more, no less, nothing that is yours. Jesus’ answer to the question, “Should we pay Caesar’s tax,” was an absolutely brilliant response to a question meant to induce Jesus to denounce Caesar’s tax, which he obviously had been doing or else his enemies wouldn’t have chosen the question as a “trap,” which is how the Gospel’s describe the question.

Jesus was not about to recant his denunciations of taxation, a form of extortion that violates God’s Commandment, “Thou shall not steal.” So the trap appeared impossible to avoid, and it would have been for an ordinary man. But Jesus was much more than ordinary, so he told them exactly what they wanted to hear, “Give Caesar nothing,” but he said it in such a way that it befuddled his deceitful questioners and they walked away scratching their heads instead of dragging him before Pilate to accuse him of tax resistance. (Pilate, as governor was responsible for collecting Rome’s taxes in Judea, and would brook no resistance thereto.)

Furthermore, Jewish Scripture by which Jesus often justified his words and actions, is clear on what belongs to Caesar. In at least six places it states unequivocally, as in Psalm 24, verse 1: “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it,” which leaves nothing for poor old Caesar, and nothing is what Jesus would have his followers pay in extortionist taxes.

Those who asked Jesus the question are described in the Gospel of Luke (Chapter 20) as “spies of the chief priests.,” and evidently not too smart. When they reported back to their handlers what Jesus had said, the priests knew Scripture and they knew exactly what Jesus words conveyed to all but those as dense as the spies they had sent. (Apparently the Rev. Jeffress has been similarly befuddled.)

So the chief priests sent their henchmen at night to take Jesus by force. When they dragged him before Pilate they told him what Jesus had been up to. "hen the entire council took Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor. 2 They began to state their case: “This man has been leading our people astray by telling them not to pay their taxes to the Roman government… he is causing riots by his teaching wherever he goes—all over Judea, from Galilee to Jerusalem!” (Luke 23:1-5, New Living Translation) While the Gospels do not say so, it is reasonable to assume that this was the primary reason Pilate crucified Jesus.

The U.S. government is hardly less vicious than Caesar and Pilate in punishing tax resisters. In 2005 the IRS and DOJ and a federal judge sent 76-year-old Irwin Schiff to jail FOR 13 YEARS for, like Jesus, resisting taxes and having the audacity to, like Jesus, encourage others to do the same. in a book he published entitled THE FEDERAL MAFIA. On October 4, 2015, Mr. Schiff died of cancer in prison, which he no doubt would have survived with effective treatment if he wasn’t in prison. See also, www.Jesus-versus-taxes.com

I can see the writing on the wall, beware of wolves in sheeps clothings.

@ David Lindsay: hadn’t heard that one since the ‘60s!
@ Bob Roberts: that’s so ’60s, too: Gives me the willies to remember how Catholics were treated by what came to be known collectively as the Evangelical Christians.

Why don’t Baptists fuck standing up?

Cuz it might lead to dancing.

FoKKKs Spews gave birth to the term “Christian Pervert”

Note to Little Peeter Jeffress - Romans 14 - we’re watching, and you’re a DikkWodd.

And evangelicals think that the Catholics are heathens and nuts?