kaufmannphillips wrote:
So is it the way of things to pay taxes, or not? Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?
RND wrote:
They think it's there's, give it to them.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
I think your landscape design business is mine. See you Monday at 8am sharp, or don't bother to use me for a reference. Oh, and don't forget the checkbook.
RND wrote:
Get in line. Haven't you heard? The gov't hates competition.
Well, if they think your business is theirs, why haven't you given it to them?
kaufmannphillips wrote:
The semantic range of the genitive (rendered "of") is broader than "belonging to." Alternate possibilities would include "deriving from" or "having to do with."
RND wrote:
What about "unto?"
Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
"Unto" is in other parts of the sentence, and it is in the dative case.
Remarkable that a person devoted to the (putative) word of G-d would not apply themselves to learning how to read it in its own language. Translation frequently fails to carry over the full and/or accurate sense of the text.
So many people, who would mock others for dependance upon a priest or a pastor for religious instruction, place this fundamental element of their spiritual lives in the hands of translators whom they have never met.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
And we are joined by the prophet from Victorville.
RND wrote:
Just a Christian.
Oh, no - more than "
[j]ust a Christian." Most Christians would be as willing to acknowledge their fallibility in discerning the spirit as they would their fallibility in interpreting scripture. Your rhetoric bespeaks a claim to something more, whether you recognize it or not.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
So then, how does your spirit correlate "nothing belongs to Caesar, it all belongs to God" with "Thou shalt not steal"?
RND wrote:
Would you be OK with someone stealing something from one of your children? Would you be OK with that "some" being one of your children stealing from another of your children?
Put yourself in God's shoes for just one second.....
(a) I'll let G-d stand in G-d's shoes. People who step into G-d's shoes may too often imagine the shoes to fit their own contours.
(b) According to your scripture, when the Israelites invaded Canaan, was G-d OK with their taking it from his children?
We may imagine that the Canaanites were not OK with this, and that they might have viewed this as "robbery."
kaufmannphillips wrote:
If nothing belongs to Caesar, then can he be thieved from?
RND wrote:
Wow, what a stretch. Nothing in in the Gospel accounts suggest that Jesus is saying "don't steal from Caesar." It's really no different than the admonition to go the extra mile. If Caesar thinks something belongs to him, even when you know it doesn't and it belongs to God, let him have it.
Remarkable exegetical method here. Why interpret a saying in its immediate context, when you can subvert it by grafting in a saying from seventeen chapters away?
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Please, then - explain the position of the "Christian" nation that has no need to discriminate.
RND wrote:
See Matthew 5, 6 and 7.
So - based upon what criteria do you apply these chapters to the offices of a nation, as opposed to private individuals?
kaufmannphillips wrote:
As for your question - if roles were reversed, I would support my favored party, as I do now. But I wouldn't argue that nations are beholden to support both my party and its adversaries indiscriminately.
RND wrote:
That's really no answer. My "party" right or wrong? I do notice that whenever anything is asked of you that requires you to make a concrete stand on anything you run in the kitchen an make waffles.
If only you would trouble yourself to think as well as you slaver out rhetoric.
Is it my responsibility to set all of my stands in concrete? It would involve quite the opportunity cost.
RND wrote:
You're over sensitive.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
That's my usual problem - excessive tenderness.
RND wrote:
Except for poor and disenfranchised Palestinians.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
I also like poignant movies and long walks on the beach.
RND wrote:
And disenfranchised Palestinians. Preferably dead?
I love that mountain with those four big heads
I love Velveeta slapped on Wonder Bread
I love a commie ... if'n he's good and dead . yup
I love America
I love Old Glory and homemade pie
I think them Ruskies should be sterilized
I love my chicken Kentucky Fried
... Finger Licken' Good!
I love General Patton in W.W.II
My Pocket Fisherman and my Crazy Glue
I love the Beav and Wally too
I love the bomb . hot dogs and mustard
I love my girl but I sure don't trust her
I love what the Indians did to Custer
Which segues into a worthy point... Are you a native Amerindian, RND? To be equitable, should not the United States be returning vast swaths of territory back to native Amerindians? And also to Mexico?
Tell me, RND, have you made ethical financial arrangements with the original owners of the land your home sits on, and do you pursue your business on properties that have not made similar ethical arrangements? If Victorville and its vicinity do not lie upon former tribal territory, it certainly belonged to Mexico before the United States leveraged its acquisition through war.
Oh, and one more thing - Palestinians
do have the franchise, and the last time it was exercised, Palestinians handed over the reins to Hamas.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Did I err in picking out your allusion in the Sermon?
RND wrote:
Of course....no Spirit of discernment.
Mm-hmmm... When you have trouble understanding me, it's because
you're not a mind-reader, but when I fail to decode your game of
Super-Password, it's because
I don't have the holy spirit.
Now, I posed these following questions before:
RND wrote:
Someone that denies Christ is Lord doesn't have the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
If you hold absolutely to this stance, then how would you possibly be susceptible to correction at the hand of a non-Christian? If the holy spirit tried to use a non-Christian to correct you, in some area where their opinion happened to be correct, would you refuse it? Would you blaspheme it?
Then again, how would you possibly be susceptible to correction, in the event that Christ actually was not Lord? If the holy spirit tried to tell you that Christ was not Lord, would you blaspheme it?
And one more go, here...
RND wrote:
Someone that denies Christ is Lord doesn't have the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
How would you engage this passage?
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this from himself, but being high priest that year he prophesied.... [John 11:47-51a, ESV, edited]
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Palestinian conduct has had nothing, of course, to do with their economic situation or their being bombed.
RND wrote:
The old "which came first" argument. To a "Christian" nation this type of argument should be pointless.
Forget "
which came first"! It's a matter of estimating "
what's coming next"!!
kaufmannphillips wrote:
<<cough>> Historically speaking, we are acting like one.
RND wrote:
No, sorry. One can say "Christian" nation all day long, gotta act like one to be called one. Just because history is re-pleat with examples of nations or temporal political powers calling themselves Christian doesn't mean they were, the actions defined the character.
If a person lies, are they therefore not a Christian? If a person cheats, are they therefore not a Christian? If a person throws dishes at their obnoxious cousin, are they therefore not a Christian? If a person is smug and snarky in their conversation, are they therefore not a Christian? Or are any or all of these persons imperfect Christians?
Some persons love Jesus at a fundamental and definitive level, and are committed to him, but have not grown yet to the point where they are sensitive to a particular sin in their lives.
Likewise, we may regard imperfect nations as Christian.
RND wrote:
Also, on that note I'll have to let you have the last word.
No promise on my part here that this is my last word.
