Jesus believed in sharing the wealth.

[wjmacguffin]

Isn't the leftist meme you are supporting here saying that if conservatives don't believe in permitting gubmint to make decisions on charity for them via taxation, they are greedy fucks?

Nope. The OP was about Jesus' support for taxation, and I agree with that based on the Bible.

There's plenty to worry about in terms of taxation. Is the system to complicated? Does it favor the rich by requiring expensive lawyers to figure out? How much is wasted? And so on. To me, questioning whether taxation is done right is not just good, it's patriotic. (It's usually a good thing to question authority, another Jesus trait.)

My problem is when people claim Jesus wouldn't pay taxes. He would but he'd complain about defense spending and want more welfare. That's hard to argue against.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Yes, but unless I misunderstood the OP, I'm on topic.

 

[blackhawk]

I don't think Jesus insisted on taxing people in order to help the poor he wanted you to do that out of the goodness of your heart. There is a big difference between donating and volunteering to help the poor which was the way of Jesus and having something taken from you through taxation to do so which is the way of Government.

 

[Katzndogz]

Jesus did not support taxation.

 

[SniperFire]

If we made school taxes voluntary, does anyone here think our educational system in this country would be better?

Would the 'generous' conservatives here still pay them?

Your argument is that things are always better for you if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff.

Typical selfish progressive.

Is that a yes or a no?

You think that funding public education in this country is making the country worse. Okay. Then you would end it, and if kids from families who were too poor to pay for their education would simply go without.

How does that make things better?

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we made school taxes voluntary, does anyone here think our educational system in this country would be better?

Would the 'generous' conservatives here still pay them?

Your argument is that things are always better for you if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff.

Typical selfish progressive.

Wrong, but thanks for playing. His argument is this: We cannot trust people to donate willingly so we must force people to donate through taxation. That's up for debate, but he never said, nor implied, anything about things being better if he could just get hold of someone else's stuff.

Sniperfire is breathtakingly ignorant, but you get used to that.

 

[Stephanie]

Your argument is that things are always better for you if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff.

Typical selfish progressive.

Wrong, but thanks for playing. His argument is this: We cannot trust people to donate willingly so we must force people to donate through taxation. That's up for debate, but he never said, nor implied, anything about things being better if he could just get hold of someone else's stuff.

Sniperfire is breathtakingly ignorant, but you get used to that.

you should talk

 

[Gareyt17]

Jesus put his 10 rules (Laws) on a two page tablet........Obama put his rules for handling ONLY health care in our nation on over 2,000.....

I think we can clearly see from this example the intent of one vs. the other for his fellow man......

 

[wjmacguffin]

Your argument is that things are always better for you if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff.

Typical selfish progressive.

Wrong, but thanks for playing. His argument is this: We cannot trust people to donate willingly so we must force people to donate through taxation. That's up for debate, but he never said, nor implied, anything about things being better if he could just get hold of someone else's stuff.

No it wasn't, asswipe. He specifically said things would be BETTER. Read the post.

You rather suck at this.

Yes, he said things would be better. But not "if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff." Your interpretation implies he's greedy and lazy; things are better if he can get someone else to work hard so he can steal from that person. That's not part of his argument--unless this poster can correct me.

Oh, and thanks for lowering the bar with your course language. That's always a sign of intelligent debate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Not even midnight yet, and note the number of 'Conservatives' denying the message of Christ at the top of their voices.

What's the Death Toll from AGW this year you Sick Troll?

 

[SniperFire]

Wrong, but thanks for playing. His argument is this: We cannot trust people to donate willingly so we must force people to donate through taxation. That's up for debate, but he never said, nor implied, anything about things being better if he could just get hold of someone else's stuff.

No it wasn't, asswipe. He specifically said things would be BETTER. Read the post.

You rather suck at this.

Yes, he said things would be better. But not "if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff." Your interpretation implies he's greedy and lazy; things are better if he can get someone else to work hard so he can steal from that person. That's not part of his argument--unless this poster can correct me.

Oh, and thanks for lowering the bar with your course language. That's always a sign of intelligent debate.

Right. But of course, you just argued ' he never said, nor implied, anything about things being better.'

So kindly STFU.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Jesus did not support taxation.

Jesus paid his taxes (Matthew 17 and 22), and in Romans, Paul explicitly tells Christians to pay their taxes. Refute that, please.

 

[SniperFire]

Nope. The OP was about Jesus' support for taxation, and I agree with that based on the Bible.

There's plenty to worry about in terms of taxation. Is the system to complicated? Does it favor the rich by requiring expensive lawyers to figure out? How much is wasted? And so on. To me, questioning whether taxation is done right is not just good, it's patriotic. (It's usually a good thing to question authority, another Jesus trait.)

My problem is when people claim Jesus wouldn't pay taxes. He would but he'd complain about defense spending and want more welfare. That's hard to argue against.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Yes, but unless I misunderstood the OP, I'm on topic.

Nobody implied you were off-topic.

Are you sure you know what a strawman argument is?

 

[Gareyt17]

This thread is simply too funny....Liberals wish to equate Taxation with Jesus telling us to willingly share with each other....

They of course conveniently leave this one out of their equation when making their argument:

Definition of COVET
transitive verb
1
: to wish for earnestly <covet an award>
2
: to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably

COVET...as in Thou Shall NOT

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your argument is that things are always better for you if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff.

Typical selfish progressive.

Is that a yes or a no?

You think that funding public education in this country is making the country worse. Okay. Then you would end it, and if kids from families who were too poor to pay for their education would simply go without.

How does that make things better?

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Yes, and that is exactly what you're doing when you respond to a question about whether voluntary school taxes would make education better by saying

"Your argument is that things are always better for you if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff."

Or you could call that a red herring or a non sequitur, not to mention an ad hominem attack.

Do you want me to repeat the original question so you can try again?

 

[SniperFire]

Jesus did not support taxation.

Jesus paid his taxes (Matthew 17 and 22), and in Romans, Paul explicitly tells Christians to pay their taxes. Refute that, please.

Lots of people pay their taxes they are against having to pay.

Logic failure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is simply too funny....Liberals wish to equate Taxation with Jesus telling us to willingly share with each other....

They of course conveniently leave this one out of their equation when making their argument:

Definition of COVET
transitive verb
1
: to wish for earnestly <covet an award>
2
: to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably

COVET...as in Thou Shall NOT

But Jesus told the man, in one story, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

THAT was an endorsement of the obligation to pay one's taxes.

 

[wjmacguffin]

No it wasn't, asswipe. He specifically said things would be BETTER. Read the post.

You rather suck at this.

Yes, he said things would be better. But not "if you are able to get your hands on the other guy's stuff." Your interpretation implies he's greedy and lazy; things are better if he can get someone else to work hard so he can steal from that person. That's not part of his argument--unless this poster can correct me.

Oh, and thanks for lowering the bar with your course language. That's always a sign of intelligent debate.

Right. But of course, you just argued ' he never said, nor implied, anything about things being better.'

So kindly STFU.

Wrong again, but thanks for playing.

MY QUOTE: "That's up for debate, but he never said, nor implied, anything about things being better if he could just get hold of someone else's stuff." (New emphasis)

YOUR VERSION OF MY QUOTE: "He never said, nor implied, anything about things being better."

What, do you work for Fox News? You took half of my quote. The second half qualifies "better". Therefore, I cannot kindly STFU. In fact, I'll offer to tutor you on English grammar so you don't make mistakes like this again, if you'd like. (WARNING! I USED "IF" AGAIN!)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong, but thanks for playing. His argument is this: We cannot trust people to donate willingly so we must force people to donate through taxation. That's up for debate, but he never said, nor implied, anything about things being better if he could just get hold of someone else's stuff.

Sniperfire is breathtakingly ignorant, but you get used to that.

you should talk

You should lay off the pringles.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As if Jesus would support a system that enslaves and murders people. Sick Sick Progs

 

[wjmacguffin]

Jesus did not support taxation.

Jesus paid his taxes (Matthew 17 and 22), and in Romans, Paul explicitly tells Christians to pay their taxes. Refute that, please.

Lots of people pay their taxes they are against having to pay.

Logic failure.

Katzndogz says Jesus did not support taxation.
wjmacguffin quotes Jesus's support for taxation.
SniperFire says people pay taxes they don't agree to pay.

I see two important points here:
1) I quoted Jesus; no one else did.
2) SniperFire pointed out his own logic failure--but I don't know why.