Jews were not self-ruling in that age either.You are putting words in Jesus's mouth he did not state, that's a sin. Jesus also said things in the old testament when the Jews had an actual state. Can you show where he put a "limit" on taxes? Jesus said through the apostles OBEY THE EARTHLY RULERS unless they order something contrary to God's law, the best argument for a rebellion against the ruler for tax reasons under a christian framework is that if the ruler takes that much it would lead to the people dying and them obeying that is suicide. But that would require some very high taxes in a non rich area.
Even before, when they did have a king, well, they had a ruler, that king, who was not even an elected king, nor even a hereditary constitutional monarchy.
Fortunately for you, sucking at reading is not a sin.
Though i'm a bit curious what exactly was Jesus saying in the Old Testament of all the books, i'm sure everyone is eager to find out.
Yes, he represents his electorate. Yes, the dodgy situation doesn't happen when i and my 2 buddies think he's doing bullshit though most of the country thinks he's the best dude ever, the dodgy situation starts when it's hard to find any people who support his bullshit yet he's doing it anyway.Yes that is the job of the representative, hell the absolute monarch has a duty to take care of his people to the best of their knowledge and ability though he does not have to follow their will. But here is the things you are not getting first off the representative does not represent YOU specefically he represents ALL of his constituents you make up less than 1% of that.
Obey laws, yes. But that cannot be contradictory with taking political action towards deposing said politicians, propagandizing against them, lobbying against them, even prosecuting them up to capital punishment if the constitution allows that.So the collective as a whole if they don't like it they can vote him out in the next election, but if he got elected once unless he hid many things what he is doing probably is not against the will of most of the people. Also even if most people disliked it in a Republic not everything is up for a vote, the unpopular actions of the leader are still legitimate, unless a recall election is possible and actually done. Until that happens a Christian MUST obey those rules.
Stealing doesn't stop being stealing if done openly, that's a terrible argument.Well theft from the public treasury was a thing Romans had, and it was probably punished more than we do. But beside the point, first off these actions don't fit stealing from the public treasury. Using funds for something you don't like does not meet the defintion. If isolationists get in power and they prosecute people who were giving things to Ukraine for example, that would not be stealing it's being done openly it's voting on the budget. Just because you don't like how every penny is spent does not give you the right to contest it.
Supporting Ukraine is part of foreign policy including specific goals in regard to widely recognized rival powers.
What national interest does giving away money to random shitholes serve?
Except the people doing the overthrowing are the ones to do the judging of whether he's bad enough, not you.Thats a very very very fine line. You can't just overthrow the ruler because he is mediocre and you have a better one lined up. Before you can even put into place your coup or treason the leader has to either be committing grave sins himself, making laws hostile to Christianity, or being actively malicious towards his own people and trying to get them to basically sin and suicide themselves. And before all that he should be warned that the effects he is doing are hurting his people and are a sin. And only if he persists THEN it is justifiable to rebel. Not many leaders in history and rebellions were this bad. The American Revolution for example did not reach this standard, the Revolutionary Army sinned and the Founding Fathers sinned greatly.
Also there is a perfectly legal process for overthrowing merely mediocre rulers, at least in democratic western countries, it's called an election.
There is a finite amount of resources to give to charity, what he gave to the foreign poor he didn't spend on the locals, and no one is going to argue that the local ones have too much.Ok this is just a shit argument. Show proof that he stole the bread from the mouths of American, that he kicked out Americans already staying there to make room for the immigrants.
>couldThat's not what happened unless that money was already earmarked for poor Americans and it was taken away you don't have a leg to stand on with this argument. No the money was from a general fund that would go towards anything, roads, the army, other government programs.
No, it doesn't randomly go wherever it feels, the same decisionmakers control where every single dollar goes, wherever it goes or doesn't, it's their decision.
They have their own arguments too, and they also argue from the position of national interest, which you seem to be dodging pathologically.You say oh that money could have been used to help Americans, yes it could have but would it have been? "Fiscal Conservatives" would have bitched and moaned about anything that helped poor Americans if we took money and used it to build houses for every homeless American they'd bitch and moan. But not for a giant military, not to give lots of cash to other nations.
So by your standards socialists are good Christians because they want to heavily tax everyone and then give away the revenue to the poor?I was responding to your think about Christian charity and an absolute ruler. God will reward senators who vote for helping the poor, and probably won't reward those who instead disdain that and prefer to keep giving more money for our bloated military.
So you're implying that the line is the poverty line, and Christians should give away all wealth they have beyond what is absolutely necessary for a spartan, minimalist lifestyle?There is not a set number, I'm not sure if you understand but Christianity is not Judaism or Islam with their meticulous rules. Is the leader giving all the nations wealth to another nation in a parody of colonialism? Anyway let's do a parable how much funds does a father need to send out to other poor families for it to become a sin rather than a virtue? The answer is pretty obvious as long as he is making sure to feed, clothe, and home his own family it is a virtue.
Last edited: