Taxation Is Theft

annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
JudgeRightly said:
Where in that verse do you see the word (or word(s) used) for "children"? I see the word "son", which in this context (at least to me) seems to mean that the son is an adult, or at least above the age of accountability.
Click to expand...

Did you know you could remove that mobile app link in your signature?

You used the word children yourself, in the quote I posted. You used the word children in saying stoning them was a just law. Even if the verse says "son," you were all right with the idea of children being stoned.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
annabenedetti said:
Did you know you could remove that mobile app link in your signature?

You used the word children yourself, in the quote I posted. You used the word children in saying stoning them was a just law. Even if the verse says "son," you were all right with the idea of children being stoned.
Click to expand...

Then you misread my statement. Read it again, this time taking into consideration the phrase immediately following the word, "children."

Looks to me like the stoning punishment for children that you are referring to is actually only for those who are resistant to all correction, who don't want to be a productive member of society. I'd say that's a just law. So please, tell me where the Bible says that "children" should be stoned.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like "the stoning punishment for children that you are referring to"
Click to expand...

"the stoning punishment for children that you are referring to"
Click to expand...

That's supposed to be one phrase. aCW kept insisting that I wanted children to be stoned, so I used that as the first part of my sentence, and used a proper explanation as the second part, which is this:

"is actually only for those who are resistant to all correction, who don't want to be a productive member of society."
Click to expand...

This is why I asked him where it says the word children in the verse he gave, because it's not there. I don't support an incorrect translation of the Bible, so why would I support stoning children if the Bible doesn't say to stone children?

So let me clarify my position now, so that there is no more confusion. If the Bible does not say we stone children, or if it does not imply it, I do not support doing so.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
JudgeRightly said:
Then you misread my statement.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't misread it. You added the qualifier (or "proper explanation") when you differentiated between stoning innocent children and stoning "actually only for those who are resistant to all correction, who don't want to be a productive member of society."

So, to recap: you don't know what age "son" is in the Bible, but you're open to the idea of stoning children who "don't want to be a productive member of society," because you said as much.



So let me clarify my position now, so that there is no more confusion. If the Bible does not say we stone children, or if it does not imply it, I do not support doing so.
Click to expand...

Since no age is given for "son," if the Bible implied stoning children, would you then find that acceptable?
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
annabenedetti said:
No, I didn't misread it. You added the qualifier (or "proper explanation") when you differentiated between stoning innocent children and stoning "actually only for those who are resistant to all correction, who don't want to be a productive member of society."

So, to recap: you don't know what age "son" is in the Bible, but you're open to the idea of stoning children who "don't want to be a productive member of society," because you said as much.





Since no age is given for "son," if the Bible implied stoning children, would you then find that acceptable?
Click to expand...
Is the Bible God's word? If so, then is it wrong to oppose it?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
annabenedetti said:
Are you willing to answer the question I asked?
Click to expand...
If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then what difference does it make to you?

If you don't believe that, you will condemn me (on the topic of the Bible saying to stone children) for being mentally ill for wanting to kill children.
If you do believe the Bible is the Word of God, then why would you oppose it if it implies that we should stone children if they are beyond and refuse correction.

If however you do believe the Bible is the Word of God, and you don't oppose it, then would you also find it acceptable to do so?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
JudgeRightly said:
If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then what difference does it make to you?

If you don't believe that, you will condemn me (on the topic of the Bible saying to stone children) for being mentally ill for wanting to kill children.
If you do believe the Bible is the Word of God, then why would you oppose it if it implies that we should stone children if they are beyond and refuse correction.

If however you do believe the Bible is the Word of God, and you don't oppose it, then would you also find it acceptable to do so?
Click to expand...

You should be able to answer the question based on your own beliefs and values, regardless of mine.

If you can't, then maybe it's because it's uncomfortable to admit, and I'd say good.

If you won't, then that's your prerogative, and we can leave it at that.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
annabenedetti said:
You should be able to answer the question based on your own beliefs and values, regardless of mine.

If you can't, then maybe it's because it's uncomfortable to admit, and I'd say good.

If you won't, then that's your prerogative, and we can leave it at that.
Click to expand...
So let me clarify my position now, so that there is no more confusion. If the Bible does not say we stone children, or if it does not imply it, I do not support doing so.
Click to expand...

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Leaving it open that if the Bible did say or imply it (and it might, since we don't know an age for "son,") then you'd consider it a just law.

Alrighty then. You take care now.
 
drbrumley

drbrumley

Well-known member
Town Heretic said:
Taxation is never theft, legally.
Click to expand...

And chattel slavery was legal and abortion is legal. Doesn't make it right.

I understand that you won't debate the morality of taxation, and that is fine. Your right in it is legal, which is the only leg you have to stand on and won't jump on the morality of it.

On this I hope we can agree in that Jesus, Peter, Paul all said to pay your taxes, no matter how burdensome they can get so we should pay as to not offend them.

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
Daniel1769

Daniel1769

New member
drbrumley said:
And chattel slavery was legal and abortion is legal. Doesn't make it right.

I understand that you won't debate the morality of taxation, and that is fine. Your right in it is legal, which is the only leg you have to stand on and won't jump on the morality of it.

On this I hope we can agree in that Jesus, Peter, Paul all said to pay your taxes, no matter how burdensome they can get so we should pay as to not offend them.

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app
Click to expand...

Yes, they paid them as to "not offend them" so that they could be left alone to preach and what not. He said pay it "as to not offend them." Not "pay it cuz roads and govmint needs to make social programs and do wars and build roadz"
 
drbrumley

drbrumley

Well-known member
Daniel1769 said:
Yes, they paid them as to "not offend them" so that they could be left alone to preach and what not. He said pay it "as to not offend them." Not "pay it cuz roads and govmint needs to make social programs and do wars and build roadz"
Click to expand...
Point is it doesn't matter what they use it for. Could be anything. You still should pay your taxes.

Sent from my SM-G920V using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top