Taxing the rich to help poor is theft

[98cwitr]

Atheist leaders? Who are they?

Faith on the Hill: The religious composition of the 116th Congress

The Faith List: 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates And Their Religion - Auburn Seminary

 

[Speedwell]

Faith on the Hill: The religious composition of the 116th Congress

The Faith List: 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates And Their Religion - Auburn Seminary

By those numbers there are hardly any atheists in Congress.

 

[98cwitr]

By those numbers there are hardly any atheists in Congress.

Thank you for acknowledging they exist, are present, and accounted for.

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you for acknowledging they exist, are present, and accounted for.

I think you gve these few atheists too much credit. The policies you misrepresent as disarmament, open borders and continued oppression of the poor are supported by many Christians in Congress. I don't think you can blame them of "our atheist leaders."

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Medicare
Medicaid
SSI
SNAP
WIC
TANF
TARP
Head Start
LIHEAP
Lifeline
CHIP

Of the above, I cannot, my children cannot, and my neighbors cannot participate, yet we pay for them and into them.

You're in luck! There are candidates running for president, senate and house seats next election who are campaigning on making these services available to everyone and/or obsolete! You should vote for those people!

 

[98cwitr]

I think you gve these few atheists too much credit. The policies you misrepresent as disarmament, open borders and continued oppression of the poor are supported by many Christians in Congress. I don't think you can blame them of "our atheist leaders."

Without breaking CF rules, these ideas I mention are in opposition to God's Law. They seek to place a heavy yoke on the populous. Learning from 1 Samuel 8; we really should see that the only government we really need is God.

Remember 1 Samuel 13, where the Philistines disarmed the Israelites by banning blacksmithing? How'd that work out?

 

[98cwitr]

You're in luck! There are candidates running for president, senate and house seats next election who are campaigning on making these services available to everyone and/or obsolete! You should vote for those people!

Nah...I'd like to see these programs abolished. There should be no government dependency programs. Let us help our neighbors ourselves as Christ commanded us.

Franklin was absolutely right:

 

[Speedwell]

Nah...I'd like to see these programs abolished. There should be no government dependency programs. Let us help our neighbors ourselves as Christ commanded us.

And that way none of your aid has to go to people whose lifestyle choices you disapprove of.

 

[Fantine]

While I respect your right to advocate your views, I do not believe our government should be a theocracy.
Evangelical Christians do not have a monopoly on knowing God's will on earth. Why should others of good faith, not only Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and the spiritual but not religious, but also Catholics and mainstream Protestants, except the interpretation of evangelical Christians on what God's will is?
America was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Immigrants traveled here for that very purpose--Hugenots, Puritans, Quakers, and others. Roger Williams founded Rhode Island to promote religious freedom.
Your particular interpretation of Christianity does not recognize the validity even of other Christian faiths that have preceded yours--Catholicism, for example, and which have years of scholarship behind them, ,scholarship that your faith was based on until your leaders adapted it to suit their own priorities.
You are free to keep espousing your own kind of government, but you sure won't change my mind until your view of theocracy is more representative of the Gospel I know.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

That would be the Federal Reserve, not the "government." Are you familiar with how fiat currencies work?

That would be our government. Are you familiar with what the Federal Reserve is and where/how it fits within our government?

Well I'm sorry because it seems I've disappointed you. Nevertheless, this are my own thoughts, supported and echoed by others like me.

I just don't understand why your thoughts are not in line with God's Word and what He teaches us and that's why I thought that you got them from somewhere else. I understand I was wrong and yes that is extremely disappointing to see someone who professes to be a Christian adopt an atheistic Ayn Rand based outlook on earthly government.

So you say, yet you've got most of the DNC parroting virtue signals that speak of nationalizing particular industry, which is the definition of socialism. So what you call an "imaginary boogie man" I'm seeing clear as day and in the flesh.

The imaginary boogie man is not "socialism" but rather the "oppression of socialism" (as I specifically referred to it in my post). We already have state-run industry and services so we've had "socialism" all along and the government has the right to socialize whatever it wants (going through their own proper channels, of course). So yes, I see socialism already in our government (for hundreds of years) and I see more socialism proposed (much of which I support enthusiastically) but I don't see "the oppression of socialism" in this country. Feel free to point it out to me but I doubt you can come up with any examples.

I am not a subject. Subjects have no rights, no freedoms, and are slaves to the state:

Before the Declaration of Independence, "subject" and "denizen" 2were the terms most frequently used in the United States in connections where "citizen" would now be the proper word. This was the natural usage in what then were British colonies, endowed with all the trimmings of the British legal order. Even after the Declaration of Independence, some states enacted constitutions designating as "subjects"the status which others identified by the term "inhabitants," while still others used "citizens" and "subjects" indiscriminately.' "Subjects" of the United States of America were referred to in the treaties signed by the Continental Congress with France (February 6, 1778) 4and the Netherlands (October 8, 1782).

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4474&context=ylj

The word "subject" in the English language is not limited to a certain subset of people under a governmental authority. Your definition above is in the context of an article that explores the use of those terms specifically in regards to American history. Go back and re-read your article there and you'll see that it openly admits that the term "subject" was redefined and pushed aside as a result of anti-Colonial bias. That is wholly understandable but the point is you're taking the word "subject" and going by a very specific case that is not applicable to our discussion as a way of avoiding the actual definition of the term.

Here's the definition of "subject":
sub·ject
noun
noun: subject; plural noun: subjects
/ˈsəbjekt/
3. a citizen or member of a state other than its supreme ruler.

You are a subject of the United States of America, by definition. The Bible doesn't care about what after-the-fact connotations Americans want to add to the term to further their rebellion against their erstwhile Colonial status.

While I see your point that reason suggests we are "subjected" to laws and taxes, what makes me not a subject in the term is that I have a voice to oppose them.

All subjects have a voice to oppose the laws and taxes they are subjected to. I don't understand how you think that changes the basic fact that you are subjected to the laws and taxes (and therefore a subject).

But they aren't in our contemporary case. They're mostly atheist. They cannot minister a message of a Being they don't believe in.

But they weren't in the case quoted directly from God's Word. They were all pagans who worshiped false gods and Caesar. Are you trying to say that as long as one is some sort of deist they can be a minister (even if the god/s they believe in are false pagan ones) but an atheist can't be?

Quite clearly, God's Word is referring to a non-Christian(/Jewish) earthly government. It neither specifies nor excludes any government run by any particular type of people (i.e. Christian or non-Christian).

I don't understand where you're getting this notion that the government referred to in Romans 13 (or anywhere else in the NT) was somehow Christian or more qualified to be ministers of God's justice than the ones we have today. And by the way, not only is the American government NOT all atheists but a majority of them are actually Christians.

I disagree. That said, I pay my taxes, but I am not going to tolerate my labors being usurped from either myself, you, or my neighbors.

Obviously you disagree, and that is your right. However, you can't justify your viewpoint from a Christian perspective - it is quite the opposite of what God's Word clearly states, as I continue to show. God's Word is sharper than any two-edged sword and it will continue to rip your libertarian ideology apart.

And yes, you will tolerate your labors being "usurped" if that's how you want to view it. You have no choice. You pay your taxes because you don't want to go to jail and that is wise. If you were obeying God you would be cheerfully giving your taxes, thanking God that you have such a benign earthly government above you, one that allows you a voice and a certain degree of influence, and that He is in control and that you trust Him that He will use your taxes according to what He has said in His Word.

If we had not opposed Britain in 1776, America would not exist. If we had not opposed Stalin, Lenin, or Hilter; their evils would have prevailed further. Therefore, your understanding of this MUST be found further in the context.

Any government that directly goes against God's Word is in error on that point and is not to be obeyed on that point. However, those governments still serve a role in meting out God's justice. If Stalin's government rounded up and killed Christians (and they did) then they were wrong and it would be right for a Christian to resist that. However, if Stalin's government arrested and took to jail an actual murderer or thief or rapist (or any sort of actual criminal), then the government was meting out God's justice on God's behalf. In other words, if you lived under Stalin's government, you wouldn't be justified in committing a crime of stealing just because the same government whose law you're breaking is also doing evil things like killing Christians. You'd still be a thief, you'd still be under the authority of that government, and when that government punishes you for stealing they are meting out God's justice upon you.

Who is "the power?"

It's clear from the context - the earthly government. That is the power being referred to and it is clarified that their power comes from God.

So Evil rulers do not fit the context. Now we're getting somewhere

Wrong. That's what what this verse says. Read again:
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Where in there do you see that "evil rulers do not fit the context"?? They do but in their evil you are not obligated to obey them. If an evil ruler commands you to worship an idol (kind of how Trump does today) then you are to disobey them in favor of obeying God. But if an evil ruler demands taxes from you that is well within their rights, no matter how evil they might be in other areas, and you must subject yourself and obey that evil ruler on that matter.

Atheists cannot be ministers of God. So your narrative shows that our current atheist leaders need not apply here. And what is their message? Disarmament, higher taxation, continued oppression of the poor, and open borders. Whatever evils shall come from their mouths we should oppose, for they are in opposition to the inalienable rights provided to us by God.

I agree that Trump is an atheist but he is still our president and I subject myself to the law of the government he is the head of. It doesn't matter that he's an atheist.

But many of our government leaders are NOT atheists and are in fact Christians.

But EVEN IF our government was completely atheists then it wouldn't even matter. The Word of God does not give a religion test for subjection to earthly authority. It simply states to subject ourselves and that the earthly governments are ministers of God unto justice. You're making up some kind of contingency based on religion which doesn't come from the Word of God but from your own mind. Sorry, I'm going to obey God's Word and not your man-made opinion.

This is why I don't commit tax evasion.

If you say so. I think it has more to do with your fear of punishment if caught, because you're a libertarian and you believe that your paying of taxes is "theft", so I find it hard to believe you when you say you are paying taxes out of obedience to God's word here. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't agree with Romans 13 on this issue.

Again, not in the case of evil rulers.

Again, yes, even in the case of what you are calling "evil rulers". I've shown above how you are wrong on that issue, but bottom line is that God's Word does not make a distinction and provide a "religion test" for earthly governments.

I do, but there is no provision here that prevents me from speaking out against their injustices.

Absolutely, speak all you want. Enjoy! Of course, when you decide to call their taxation an "injustice" (i.e. "theft") you are speaking directly against what God's Word teaches. And you're free to do that also - you are free to speak against God and His Will. Just don't pretend that your political ideology is supported by Christianity, because it's actually diametrically opposed to Christianity. Ayn Rand will tell you the same thing.

Just proved I do not. Reject the evil from among us!

By calling it theft and injustice you DO resist it. You are calling God a liar because He has explicitly said that it is NOT theft but it is their right by the authority He has given them. You ultimately comply but you resist the whole time. You only ultimately comply out of the fear that you will be punished (and you're right, you WILL be punished if you don't comply).

Show me where they are ministers of God; workers of good according to His Word, and I will yield. Otherwise, drop this falsehood.

I've shown it to you right there in Romans 13. You flat out reject it, I can't help that. Here it is in black and white one last time - pay attention to verses 4 and 6 where earthly governments are explicitly called God's ministers:
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

 

[98cwitr]

That would be our government. Are you familiar with what the Federal Reserve is and where/how it fits within our government?

Not exactly:

The Fed's board structure was created to ensure its independence from politics. The president nominates potential board members, and the U.S. Senate confirms them. If the staggered schedule is followed, then no president or congressional party majority can control the board. This independence allows the Fed to focus on long-term economic goals. They can't be pressured to either raise or lower interest rates. Instead, they make all decisions based solely on economic indicators.

Who Really Controls the Fed?

I just don't understand why your thoughts are not in line with God's Word and what He teaches us and that's why I thought that you got them from somewhere else. I understand I was wrong and yes that is extremely disappointing to see someone who professes to be a Christian adopt an atheistic Ayn Rand based outlook on earthly government.

I don't see where they aren't inline. If I were advocating that we all stop paying our taxes, then sure...that would be out of line. I'm saying we, as the People of the United States, DEMAND fiscal restrain and a lowering of our taxation that helps everyone! There is nothing in the Bible that forbids or even discourages that movement.

Socialism and Communism's main actors were professing atheists...should we condemn those as well then?

The imaginary boogie man is not "socialism" but rather the "oppression of socialism" (as I specifically referred to it in my post). We already have state-run industry and services so we've had "socialism" all along and the government has the right to socialize whatever it wants (going through their own proper channels, of course). So yes, I see socialism already in our government (for hundreds of years) and I see more socialism proposed (much of which I support enthusiastically) but I don't see "the oppression of socialism" in this country. Feel free to point it out to me but I doubt you can come up with any examples.

Tell it so those who lived behind the iron curtain, or those in Venezuela, or the Hong Kong protestors, or anywhere you find socialism as the main form of national economy.

The word "subject" in the English language is not limited to a certain subset of people under a governmental authority. Your definition above is in the context of an article that explores the use of those terms specifically in regards to American history. Go back and re-read your article there and you'll see that it openly admits that the term "subject" was redefined and pushed aside as a result of anti-Colonial bias. That is wholly understandable but the point is you're taking the word "subject" and going by a very specific case that is not applicable to our discussion as a way of avoiding the actual definition of the term.

Here's the definition of "subject":
sub·ject
noun
noun: subject; plural noun: subjects
/ˈsəbjekt/
3. a citizen or member of a state other than its supreme ruler.

You are a subject of the United States of America, by definition. The Bible doesn't care about what after-the-fact connotations Americans want to add to the term to further their rebellion against their erstwhile Colonial status.

"Other than its supreme ruler." In America, who is that?

All subjects have a voice to oppose the laws and taxes they are subjected to. I don't understand how you think that changes the basic fact that you are subjected to the laws and taxes (and therefore a subject).

Here's the difference: Am I subject to my legislative representation or are they subject to me? We do not have Lords and Kings any more (apart from Christ); but we have a democratic republic, of which "subjects" cannot exist apart from those imprisoned and subjected to the 13th amendment.

But they weren't in the case quoted directly from God's Word. They were all pagans who worshiped false gods and Caesar. Are you trying to say that as long as one is some sort of deist they can be a minister (even if the god/s they believe in are false pagan ones) but an atheist can't be?

Not exactly, but I am saying that while an atheist can be a vessel to bring about God's Will, that when a secular government attempts to implement laws that infringe upon our inalienable rights they should be resisted and opposed.

Quite clearly, God's Word is referring to a non-Christian(/Jewish) earthly government. It neither specifies nor excludes any government run by any particular type of people (i.e. Christian or non-Christian).

Then how are they ministers of God?

I don't understand where you're getting this notion that the government referred to in Romans 13 (or anywhere else in the NT) was somehow Christian or more qualified to be ministers of God's justice than the ones we have today. And by the way, not only is the American government NOT all atheists but a majority of them are actually Christians.

Because it says that they are for "good works."

Obviously you disagree, and that is your right. However, you can't justify your viewpoint from a Christian perspective - it is quite the opposite of what God's Word clearly states, as I continue to show. God's Word is sharper than any two-edged sword and it will continue to rip your libertarian ideology apart.

So then, in your mind, Trump was appointed by God, correct?

And yes, you will tolerate your labors being "usurped" if that's how you want to view it. You have no choice. You pay your taxes because you don't want to go to jail and that is wise. If you were obeying God you would be cheerfully giving your taxes, thanking God that you have such a benign earthly government above you, one that allows you a voice and a certain degree of influence, and that He is in control and that you trust Him that He will use your taxes according to what He has said in His Word.

Government above me...wow. I have no government above me other than God. We are a government of the people, aren't we? Isn't the context of biblical authorities monarchies?

It would seem I am recalling such a tactic from the 19th century, where slave holders cited Ephesians 6 in order to justify their ownership of human property and ensure they maintained their subjugation over others. Not me, not I...I will not be the state's slave. As God as my witness, I assure you that I do not feel shamed by your words.

Any government that directly goes against God's Word is in error on that point and is not to be obeyed on that point. However, those governments still serve a role in meting out God's justice. If Stalin's government rounded up and killed Christians (and they did) then they were wrong and it would be right for a Christian to resist that. However, if Stalin's government arrested and took to jail an actual murderer or thief or rapist (or any sort of actual criminal), then the government was meting out God's justice on God's behalf. In other words, if you lived under Stalin's government, you wouldn't be justified in committing a crime of stealing just because the same government whose law you're breaking is also doing evil things like killing Christians. You'd still be a thief, you'd still be under the authority of that government, and when that government punishes you for stealing they are meting out God's justice upon you.

Then let the government be judged just, and when in error, corrected.

It's clear from the context - the earthly government. That is the power being referred to and it is clarified that their power comes from God.

Which was what? A Monarchy.

Wrong. That's what what this verse says. Read again:
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Where in there do you see that "evil rulers do not fit the context"??

"For rulers are not a terror to good works"

Says it right there. Says they are a terror to evil. If they are that, then they are good. When they are not, the shoe doesn't fit. Therefore, we are not called to submit to their authority, rule, or injustices.

They do but in their evil you are not obligated to obey them. If an evil ruler commands you to worship an idol (kind of how Trump does today) then you are to disobey them in favor of obeying God. But if an evil ruler demands taxes from you that is well within their rights, no matter how evil they might be in other areas, and you must subject yourself and obey that evil ruler on that matter.

Go back and read the verse again.

I agree that Trump is an atheist but he is still our president and I subject myself to the law of the government he is the head of. It doesn't matter that he's an atheist.

Sources say he's Presbyterian. Many of his actions do seem unChristian though. So to that point, and without committing any CF rule violations, I will ask that you recant that, but I do err on the side of wonder and confusion on the topic.

But many of our government leaders are NOT atheists and are in fact Christians.

Are they?

But EVEN IF our government was completely atheists then it wouldn't even matter. The Word of God does not give a religion test for subjection to earthly authority. It simply states to subject ourselves and that the earthly governments are ministers of God unto justice. You're making up some kind of contingency based on religion which doesn't come from the Word of God but from your own mind. Sorry, I'm going to obey God's Word and not your man-made opinion.

Who's justice?

If you say so. I think it has more to do with your fear of punishment if caught, because you're a libertarian and you believe that your paying of taxes is "theft", so I find it hard to believe you when you say you are paying taxes out of obedience to God's word here. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't agree with Romans 13 on this issue.

When taxes are spent on unjust things, then shouldn't we protest?

Again, yes, even in the case of what you are calling "evil rulers". I've shown above how you are wrong on that issue, but bottom line is that God's Word does not make a distinction and provide a "religion test" for earthly governments.

And I have rebuked your sentiment and shown its error.

Absolutely, speak all you want. Enjoy! Of course, when you decide to call their taxation an "injustice" (i.e. "theft") you are speaking directly against what God's Word teaches. And you're free to do that also - you are free to speak against God and His Will. Just don't pretend that your political ideology is supported by Christianity, because it's actually diametrically opposed to Christianity. Ayn Rand will tell you the same thing.

Tread careful. I do not speak against the Lord, and have numerously times proven that your sentiment needs further context to be accurate.

By calling it theft and injustice you DO resist it. You are calling God a liar because He has explicitly said that it is NOT theft but it is their right by the authority He has given them. You ultimately comply but you resist the whole time. You only ultimately comply out of the fear that you will be punished (and you're right, you WILL be punished if you don't comply).

Again, see above.

I've shown it to you right there in Romans 13. You flat out reject it, I can't help that. Here it is in black and white one last time - pay attention to verses 4 and 6 where earthly governments are explicitly called God's ministers:
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

I rejected it because the proper context is being ignored.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I would think God would want rich people to pay for the poor. But now it's come to to the point. That the younger generation need this money for the damages that been put on them .

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Not exactly:

The Fed's board structure was created to ensure its independence from politics. The president nominates potential board members, and the U.S. Senate confirms them. If the staggered schedule is followed, then no president or congressional party majority can control the board. This independence allows the Fed to focus on long-term economic goals. They can't be pressured to either raise or lower interest rates. Instead, they make all decisions based solely on economic indicators.

Who Really Controls the Fed?

And again, you can't refute reality no matter how much you try to pretend that you can. Your article does not prove your point but rather reinforces mine.

The Fed is considered "an independent agency WITHIN the government". That's all there is to it. It exists because the government created it and it continues to exist because the government enables and supports it. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and the Fed is considered constitutionally part of the executive branch.

You seem to like to play games with semantics, taking whatever words you can stretch or distort the meanings for and then calculating your desired outcome. Doesn't work. The Federal Reserve is an agency like many others that are considered WITHIN the government - agencies like the CIA, FCC, FEC, EPA, SEC, SBA, and many others. I suppose you consider those to not be government agencies either? Good luck finding someone to agree with you on that. Your "evidence" certainly doesn't back your claims.

I don't see where they aren't inline. If I were advocating that we all stop paying our taxes, then sure...that would be out of line. I'm saying we, as the People of the United States, DEMAND fiscal restrain and a lowering of our taxation that helps everyone! There is nothing in the Bible that forbids or even discourages that movement.

When you call taxation "theft" then you are directly contradicting God's Word. God's Word says clearly in Romans 13
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Nowhere does God's Word call taxation "theft" or even imply it. And in Romans 13, in the verses above, it says that there is a cause for which we pay the taxes, and that cause is that the government are God's ministers who continually attend to their jobs for Him in meting out justice.

Socialism and Communism's main actors were professing atheists...should we condemn those as well then?

Most Marxists are atheists. Socialists are not Marxists. You seem to misunderstand the terms or you (along with those who share your agenda) misrepresent socialism in order to try to make it look bad.

But if you want an example of Christians who were socialists, look no further than the Early Church which set up a socialist community under the direction and leadership of the Apostles:
Acts 2
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

And Acts 4
31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 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,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Note the wealth was all given to the Apostles and then the Apostles redistributed the wealth according to need (not "merit") - v. 35

If Jesus and the Apostles were alive today they would be branded Socialists by most people and hated for their "socialism".

Tell it so those who lived behind the iron curtain, or those in Venezuela, or the Hong Kong protestors, or anywhere you find socialism as the main form of national economy.

Tell it to those who live in countries like Sweden, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, etc. where socialism helps people have a higher standard of living than we have in the US despite the US being more economically strong and having the highest wealth. You give examples of communism as being socialism but they are not the same thing. When it's convenient you pretend they are the same thing. When it's convenient you pretend socialist nations "are capitalist ones that have socialist programs" or something to that effect.

"Other than its supreme ruler." In America, who is that?

The United States Government. Did you miss history or social studies in school? You didn't know this?

Here's the difference: Am I subject to my legislative representation or are they subject to me? We do not have Lords and Kings any more (apart from Christ); but we have a democratic republic, of which "subjects" cannot exist apart from those imprisoned and subjected to the 13th amendment.

You're subject to them. They are subject to the vote of the people which includes you but is not just you. Why am I explaining the basics of how things work to you? Why are you asking such simplistic questions? You should seek an education from a school, not from the internet.

As for your continued attempt to redefine "subject", don't bother; I've already explained how irrational and wrong you are on that point.

Not exactly, but I am saying that while an atheist can be a vessel to bring about God's Will, that when a secular government attempts to implement laws that infringe upon our inalienable rights they should be resisted and opposed.

So you're saying that because Rome was pagan and not "secular" that they were rightly called "ministers"?? I can't believe you are saying that pagan Romans were ministers of God because of their theism (which is pagan and worships false gods). That's unbelievable to me. I have to wonder who would agree with you on that - I can't think of anyone, especially not Christians. Is this the concept that right-wing and libertarian media is pushing now?

Then how are they ministers of God?

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

I wish you would accept the answer that I've shown you directly from God's Word instead of asking the same question over and over. It's as though you think God's Word is going to magically change and become libertarian propaganda to back you up. It doesn't work that way. You either conform to God or you rebel against Him. He won't change to accommodate libertarianism (especially because He hates it and everything that it stands for - too bad for Ayn Rand and her devotees).

Because it says that they are for "good works."

No, it says "3 For rulers are not a terror to good works," not "for". You shouldn't add or take away from God's Word to try to spread your unbiblical libertarian beliefs.

So then, in your mind, Trump was appointed by God, correct?

Incorrect. God does not "appoint" any rulers. God gives rulers authority when they achieve their position. God did not put Caesar in power but rather allowed Caesar to come to power through whatever means the Roman Empire decided. God THEN upheld Caesar's earthly power as a ruler to be a minister of Him and His Justice to all his subjects (including citizens - there's no actual distinction between subject or citizen).

The USA is no different. America was born out of witchcraft, i.e. rebellion. However, once America was established as an independent nation with an independent rule, God upheld and upholds the power of America as a government to rule its subjects. You are one of those subjects, as am I and every American. Sorry you hate to hear the truth but that's it right there.

Government above me...wow. I have no government above me other than God. We are a government of the people, aren't we? Isn't the context of biblical authorities monarchies?

What a laugh. You most definitely have a government above you and you even admit you fear it (which you SHOULD). You resent it, and you are resenting God's authority in doing so:
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

It would seem I am recalling such a tactic from the 19th century, where slave holders cited Ephesians 6 in order to justify their ownership of human property and ensure they maintained their subjugation over others. Not me, not I...I will not be the state's slave. As God as my witness, I assure you that I do not feel shamed by your words.

I don't know why you're "recalling such a tactic from the 19th century, where slave holders cited Ephesians 6 in order to justify their ownership of human property and ensure they maintained their subjugation over others." That has nothing to do with this discussion. In that case, Ephesians 6 does not state that slave ownership is right, or ordained by God, or that slave owners are "ministers of God", or any other such thing. It exhorts those unfortunate enough to be slaves to be subject to their masters but it does not exonerate the masters for being slave holders. Not to mention that slavery of that time was mostly not like the slave trade that America and Europe perpetrated early in US history. Not to mention also that most of us today are forms of slaves, "wage slaves" as it were.

So feel free to recall that or any other irrelevant issue - it doesn't change the fact that God's Word tells us that earthly governmental authority is an extension of His authority and we are to subject ourselves to it, the only exception being when we are DIRECTLY told to go against God. Even Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not disobey Nebuchadnezzar UNTIL he DIRECTLY ordered them to do something that was against God. It didn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar's government was anti-God, Neb was still an authority on earth and had authority from God to be so. Not even Daniel disobeyed Neb until he was forced to choose between Neb and God.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Then let the government be judged just, and when in error, corrected.

I don't care about your statement as it is simply part of the libertarian ideology. Please provide a scriptural response with scripture reference if you want me to take it seriously at all. I don't take libertarianism seriously in the least bit because it's entirely built on sand.

Which was what? A Monarchy.

Yes. It was also Roman. Are you saying that the passage only applies to Roman Monarchies? Try again.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works"

Says it right there. Says they are a terror to evil. If they are that, then they are good. When they are not, the shoe doesn't fit. Therefore, we are not called to submit to their authority, rule, or injustices.

So you're saying that the Roman Empire was a terror to evil and was good? They were indeed a terror to evil but they also perpetrated evil, including evil committed specifically against Christ and Christians. That's the very same government, the one that crucified Christ, that the Apostle in God's Word is exhorting people to subject themselves to. You can't reconcile that with your injected theory of "Ummm only if they are good!!!" - unless you're saying it's good that they killed Christ and Christians.

So again we see that your man-made ideology of libertarianism is directly opposed to what God's Word tells us. Which is one of the reasons for the dearth of scripture in any of your answers (and when you do use scripture, which is rare, you take a small snippet and present it completely out of context).

Go back and read the verse again.

I did. It hasn't changed and neither has the rest of God's Word.

Sources say he's Presbyterian. Many of his actions do seem unChristian though. So to that point, and without committing any CF rule violations, I will ask that you recant that, but I do err on the side of wonder and confusion on the topic.

You're the one who called and continues to call our nation's leaders "atheist leaders". You said, "Atheists cannot be ministers of God. So your narrative shows that our current atheist leaders need not apply here." If our leaders are atheists that includes Trump.

Now you're equivocating. Is it because you're a Trump devotee? You like to label people as atheists but when I respond with YOUR assessment of Trump as an atheist you try to flip the script.

And as for committing any CF violations, is calling our nation's leaders "atheist leaders" or "atheists" or should you recant that? As well as your questioning of our nation's Christian leaders - please feel free to tell me who these "atheist leaders" are and make sure none of them are Christians, so as not commit CF violations.

Are they?

I said they are. Are you saying they're not? CAN you say they're not without committing any CF violations? Feel free to answer with an actual answer instead of another question (which is a dodging tactic but I guess you don't have any other good options)

Who's justice?

I don't know what you mean. Justice is not a person so I don't know who is justice. Did you mean "what's justice?"

When taxes are spent on unjust things, then shouldn't we protest?

Doesn't matter. Protest all you want. But if your protest includes the lie that "taxation is theft" then you are directly contradicting God's Word which says taxation is due to governmental authorities because they are a minister of God to mete out His Justice. I have no problem with your protestations, I have a problem with your insistence that your anti-Biblical protestations are actually somehow in line with Christianity/God's Word.

And I have rebuked your sentiment and shown its error.

You've responded and rebuked but you have certainly not shown error. You don't even post scripture other than a couple out of context little snippets. You've quoted other sources much more than scripture, which makes sense, because your ideas are not scriptural but rather secular. Your libertarian Ayn Rand-ian perspective is certainly a popular political one in the US but it goes directly against God's Word.

Tread careful. I do not speak against the Lord, and have numerously times proven that your sentiment needs further context to be accurate.

You have directly spoken against God's Word as I've presented it. God says to subject yourself to authority and you say "Not unless it's a GOOD authority!!!" and you provide no scripture for that, just your own opinion which is based in ego rather than scripture.

Again, see above.

Well you tell me - is Romans 13 lying when it says that governmental authority is a minister of God and that taxes are owed to them? You'v already stated as much because you have called taxation "theft". You are saying that Romans 13 is incorrect and that the taxes paid to a government are a THEFT. You are saying that Romans 13 is advocating theft. That makes God's Word a lie. How can it be otherwise? How can you claim Romans 13 to be true while claiming the opposite of what it says is true? The idea that taxation is theft is not Biblical but rather a lie dreamed up by Ayn Rand and those of her ilk. Why are you so intent on defending that?

I rejected it because the proper context is being ignored.

The context is provided to you. Look to the rest of God's Word and feel free to show me ANYTHING in God's Word that even suggests taxation by an earthly government to be "THEFT". Feel free. I know it doesn't exist, but go ahead and knock yourself out trying to defend a libertarian concept with a scripture that doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]