[QUOTE=chappy;372862]Don't worry too much about it BJ, neither does the OP.


Those who don't [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17179&highlight=16th+amendment"]remember the forum[/URL] are destined [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=337121&highlight=16th+amendment#post337121"]to repeat it[/URL], and [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=372860#post372860"]repeat it[/URL]...[/QUOTE]

Incidentally, what's a written constitution? In the UK we don't have one, just an unwritten constitution, so we don't have amendments to the constitution to get our knickers in a twist and our forums never-endingly recursive (or recursively never-ending) over.

I think I'll shut up now, and go and study some octonions. Surely there's a way of doing ...

The following is copy/pasted from something I wrote in the Lounge, I haven't read this thread in weeks.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I recently got a message from Xyzzy checking on me, so I'm guessing some people were concerned about my sudden disappearance. I'm touched by the concern, but I'm totally fine. And if anyone really feels the need to check on me, I'm on Google+ through Youtube, with the name Jason Goatcher. There's only one other Jason Goatcher on the planet that I know of, and he's in the UK, I'm in the US. I haven't specifically posted to Google+ in forever, so you'll be reading mostly inane comments about gaming videos that I watch on Youtube.

The reason I left is that, while I understand I'm a grown man and should be able to take criticism, sometimes I take it more personally than other times depending on the topic. I'm sure many of you understand that sometimes autistic people, mildly autistic in my case, tend to obsess over stuff, and in my case one of my old obsessions is income tax law or, more specifically, case law. I'm only posting in the Lounge so people who are concerned about me see this, any opinions about the law beyond this post will go in the Soap Box.

When I originally posted in the Soap Box, the response was swift and rather aggressive. The posts I read didn't try to reason with me, they just told me I'm bad wrong. I understand that people view the world differently from me, and I'm very rigid with the way I approach things. I believe this rigidity is not only good, but necessary, when it comes to the laws in any country. I don't have an opinion about the particulars of any law in the US, but when we call ourselves a republic(a nation of written law) but let judges reinterpret laws with no law specifically allowing this that I'm aware of, it feels very wrong to me. It should be up to the jury(for individual cases) and our representatives for the laws in general. I understand that there are concepts people use when explaining judges making laws, but I don't believe there's an actual law on the book explicitly stating that a case's ruling should be allowed to apply to people that weren't included in the case in the first place.(due process is the concept I'm thinking of with my reasoning) This is 100% of my problem with US law. I mostly refer to Title 26, Federal Income Tax when I get in these discussions, but untimately what I just stated about judges is 100% of why I'm disturbed about the legal system in the US.

I'll post a copy of this in the other thread if I can find it. I suppose my long absence is a good thing since my emotions about that other thread lowered my IQ quite a bit.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;372865]As a Christian, I am sure that you are familiar with Mark 12:17. Jesus himself advocated the payment of taxes by the citizenry.[/quote]
Matthew 17:24-27. Mark 12:17 is misunderstood by many, Jesus meant give ALL the gold to Caesar and share you're actually useful wealth with your Christian brethren. I know a lot of people claim capitalism is the most awesome thing in the world, but the only reason it's the best idea is because people are corrupt and greedy. It's like with the prisoner's dilemma, when people are expected to be selfish, determining the proper response can become complex.

Sorry if this has been covered already, haven't read this thread in a while.

[quote]As for the legality of US income tax, I am sure that Willie Nelson would love to clear things up for you over a beer or two. You will also note in various IRS materials that the arguments that you make above are not in any way novel, and in fact have special frivolity penalties attached to them, lest a taxpayer try to hide behind them.[/quote]
This is immoral and illegal despite the fact that the IRS does, indeed, do this.

[quote]By the way, what do you make of sales tax, property tax, school tax, car tax, excise tax, alcohol and tobacco tax, luxury tax, estate tax, etc.? Personally, I think that it is disgusting that Americans never own their homes, even if they pay their mortgages in full (try skipping a real estate tax payment and see what happens!). Ditto for estate taxes, where >=50% of someone's (previously taxed!) legacy can be seized by the government rather than being rightfully passed on to the heirs.[/quote]
Those taxes are okay because they're based on privileges, if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the goods.

I 100% agree with everything after this. Just because I disapprove of something doesn't mean I'm not going to "follow along." I believe the pertinent Bible verse for me is the one about not being able to hide a city on a hill or a candle under a bush. When immoral acts are made public, it shames the people who committed them, so my intention with these threads is to convince people something is very wrong and to change things with their votes and their public condemnation of these acts.

[quote]The problem that I see with this issue is not the tax as much as how the government treats the money and the taxpayers. I have no trouble with the public all kicking in to build and maintain infrastructure that we all need in order to be a first-world nation (for instance, I agree with many state Departments of Transportation that a significant fuel tax increase is needed to maintain our sprawling yet crumbling highway network). What is wrong is pure waste - the $100,000 GSA "meetings" in Vegas, millions of dollars in grant money for nebulous research (what happens if a monkey is made to jog 12 miles a day?), or even billions for never-ending quagmire military offenses in nations that aren't interested in our presence, even under the guise of "protection" or "peacekeeping".

Unfortunately, as anyone who has ever witnessed a business trip or an insurance claim can attest, splurging and waste are endemic any time someone else, especially a faceless entity (e.g. a corporation or government) is footing the bill from seemingly infinite funds. That is why my suggestion to anyone (including my own parents who just shouted $4,300+ to Uncle Sam last month) is to take advantage of as many legal means as possible to lower your taxes (investments, businesses, mortgage interest, etc. - a second home works wonders as a tax deduction). But at the end of it all, when you have a number - how much you get to keep - just think of that as your salary, and think of the tax money over and above that as money paid to the government on your behalf by your employer. For example, if you make $60,000 per year, but have a $15,000 tax liability, your salary is really $45,000. You're never going to see that $15,000, and your employer has already paid it, so just forget it. Of course, if your salary seems unreasonably low at this point, then it's time to have the infamous "how about a raise?" talk with the boss. But then keep in mind that every raise he gives you means that he has to give a corresponding raise to the government! In the end, I truly believe that is about the most sane way to think about taxes. Otherwise, yes, every $900 hammer purchased by the Pentagon, or every $100,000 junket in Air Force One, is going to blow your mind.

Just render unto Caesar (or Washington) what is Caesar's (or Washington's) and be done.[/QUOTE]

In the interesting trivia department, the interpretation of the "render unto Caesar" bible quote is missing a significant amount of information.

Remember the "money changers" in the temple? Jesus overturned their tables and whipped them out of the temple grounds. There was an important reason they were there. The temple offering could not - by tradition - accept foreign currency. Since the Jewish people were ruled by Romans and since Roman coinage was the prevalent coinage of the empire and since taxes had to be paid in Roman coins, the Jews set up a trade system. The money changers swapped Roman coins for Jewish temple coins. The priests brought the temple coins out and swapped them with the money changers so they could purchase materials needed to support the temple. It was a closed loop, Roman money in, Jewish money swapped twice, and Roman money used in the economy.

Now think of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" and you will see that Jesus was delivering a message with a double meaning. The Jews he spoke to clearly understood that Roman money could not be given to God via the temple and vice versa, the Romans would not accept Jewish money to pay taxes.

:goodposting: That is a very interesting fleshing out of a well known story. Thanks!

[QUOTE=jasong;376424]Mark 12:17 is misunderstood by many, Jesus meant give ALL the gold to Caesar and share you're actually useful wealth with your Christian brethren.[/QUOTE]It is not that. The simple answer is very profound in its implication.

First let's examine the situation behind the answer.
Here is the passage in a modern version:[quote]The Pharisees got together with Herod's followers. Then they sent some men to trick Jesus into saying something wrong. They went to him and said, "Teacher, we know that you are honest. You treat everyone with the same respect, no matter who they are. And you teach the truth about what God wants people to do. Tell us, should we pay taxes to the Emperor or not?" Jesus knew what they were up to, and he said, "Why are you trying to test me? Show me a coin!" They brought him a silver coin, and he asked, "Whose picture and name are on it?" "The Emperor's," they answered. Then Jesus told them, "Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God." The men were amazed at Jesus. (Mar 12:13-17 CEV)[/quote]He was being asked a "gotcha" question, like "Do you still beat your wife?"
If he answered "Yes", the Pharisees would have had a cause to accuse him (they believed in withholding from the Romans their taxes and that it was a religious duty to resist them at all costs in everything.)
If he answered "No", then the Herodians could report him to the government.
This was just one of many questions that he was asked trying to discredit him in the eyes of the people or get him in trouble with the authorities.

His answer was perfect, the coin was indeed the tribute money and had the name and picture of a Cæsar. This would then give a proper justification for a Pharisee to get rid of it. But, the second half is even more dramatic. Taking the clue from "Whose picture and name are on it?", one should look at how that corresponds to "what belongs to God."
Looking back at the then existing Jewish scriptures one can find the following:
"God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27 NET)
"And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like the engravings of a signet, HOLY TO THE LORD." (Exo 39:30 RV)
"every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory; I have formed him; yea, I have made him." (Isa 43:7 RV)
"But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there." (Neh 1:9 KJV)
"And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them." (Num 6:27 KJV)
Man has the image of God upon him. The Jewish people had the name of God upon them (the reference in Exodus is about the priest who wore the name of God upon his forehead). This is the correspondence to the coin. Man was supposed to give himself, fully to God.

So in addition to answering the direct question, Jesus turned their question back upon them and was questioning if they were giving proper 'tribute' to God.


A further about taxation and the relationship of the christian believer to the government:
[quote]Let every soul be subject to offices of authority that rank higher, for there is no office of authority if not by God, and the offices of authority that are by God, are those that have been instituted. So that he who resists the office of authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and those who have opposed will receive condemnation to themselves. For rulers are not a source of fear to the good works, but to the evil. And do thou desire not to fear the office of authority? Do what is good, and thou will have praise from it. For he is a helper of God to thee for what is good. But if thou do what is evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is a helper of God, vengeful for wrath to the man who commits evil. Therefore there is a need to be subordinate, not only because of the wrath, but also because of the conscience. For because of this ye also fulfill taxes, for they are servants of God being devoted to this same thing. Render therefore to all, the things due: tax to the man of tax, tribute to the man of tribute, fear to the man of fear, esteem to the man of esteem. (Rom 13:1-7 ACV)[/quote]

Anne Lamott famously said, “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

A corollary to that in Biblical Studies (indeed in any religious text studies) is, "You can safely assume you don't know what you are talking about when a Bible verse is 'commonly misunderstood,' but actually means something very specific that supports your own already preconceived world view."

How could render unto Caesar mean anything other than "in the worldly things submit to the government placed above you" in light of Romans 13:1 (Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God) and Titus 3:1 (Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed)?

Of course this all leads into why I'm a Christ-mythicist. There's almost no chance that anything like this render verse was said by the same guy who said sell your cloak and buy a sword. And watching the theological and textual leaps and bounds Christians of various stripes jump to to make those (and so many other dichotomies) work together is amusing for a time, but ultimately fruitless.

Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." But, in reality there's not reason to believe we know anything about the person who came to be called Christ, or even if there was a single person and not an amalgamation of various radicals of the time.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;376888]In the interesting trivia department, <...>[/QUOTE]

:tu:, :very: :goodposting: :fusion: :power: !

(edit: didn't want to make it look like that, hehe, but the post was indeed very good and well documented!)

Chappy brought out the nuance that "render unto God" was a not so subtle slap telling the Jews they were not fulfilling their obligation. Most people miss that.

Not to take this thread too far off topic, but if you want to study a really interesting part of the bible, read the parable of the prodigal son carefully. Was it about the prodigal son? The Father? Or the son who stayed home?