Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
French Patriot

Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?

Recommended Posts

Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?

 

Do you theists crave God’s law on earth, --- or do you think Jesus was saying that secular law was better?

 

Giving to Caesar includes loyalty and allegiance to the law of the land.

 

Jesus would not recommend an inferior justice system.  

 

I guess that the choice is between God’s tyranny, --- and liberty to only follow the law, --- another tyranny, --- which has already negated any notion of freedom for man.

 

Is secular law inferior or superior to the laws of the Gods?

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's an explanation to that:

 

 

Quote

What did Jesus mean when He said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”?

https://www.gotquestions.org/render-to-Caesar.html

 

Btw, do you understand now that your religion believes in the supernatural?  I think.....you should concentrate in studying your own religion (Gnostic Christianity), so you wouldn't be raising eyebrows, and eliciting hoots of laughter with your comment! :lol:

Edited by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:15 AM, betsy said:

 

Here's an explanation to that:

 

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/render-to-Caesar.html

 

Btw, do you understand now that your religion believes in the supernatural?  I think.....you should concentrate in studying your own religion (Gnostic Christianity), so you wouldn't be raising eyebrows, and eliciting hoots of laughter with your comment! :lol:

Try your garbage again and we are done. How old are you and start acting your age.

Can you still be educated or are you too brain dead?

 Regards

DL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Try your garbage again and we are done. How old are you and start acting your age.

Can you still be educated or are you too brain dead?

 Regards

DL

 

 

 You most likely will not understand the rebuttals anyway.   Just look at your response to the explanation about rendering to Caesar!

  If you believe Jesus is a myth - why the heck do you quote what He said??   Why would His statement be of any importance to you?   Why does the meaning of that statement bother you?   Do you see anyone bothered by a statement -  like, quoting Jason (of the Golden Fleece) and asking what he meant - and when the explanation is given -  come back saying Jason and the Golden Fleece is myth????  :D

 

Anyway.....

First things first.  You mentioned getting educated.  Have you?   Have you done your homework about your own religion?  Do you now know that as a Gnostic Christian, you have to believe in the supernatural?

Btw, what do you understand by the term supernatural?  :lol:

 

 

 

 
Quote

 

10 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Try your garbage again and we are done

Can you still be educated or are you too brain dead?

 

 

Didn't you get that we've been done right after you confessed to being a Gnostic Christian?   It shows how much you know.....or, let's say how much you don't know.   Heck, you can't even tell when you've been waved bye-bye to! And you refer to me as brain-dead?   :lol:

 

I'm not here to listen to bs.   Bye already.

Sayonara.

Adios.

Auf weidersehen.

Bedrood.

Au revoir.

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:00 PM, French Patriot said:

Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?

 

Do you theists crave God’s law on earth, --- or do you think Jesus was saying that secular law was better?

 

Giving to Caesar includes loyalty and allegiance to the law of the land.

 

Jesus would not recommend an inferior justice system.  

 

I guess that the choice is between God’s tyranny, --- and liberty to only follow the law, --- another tyranny, --- which has already negated any notion of freedom for man.

 

Is secular law inferior or superior to the laws of the Gods?

 

Regards

DL

Give unto Caesar what its Caesars, and unto God what is God's.   What exactly is not God's?   Jesus is joking about the fact that all these patriots are carrying Occupation money bearing graven images, surely? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Penderyn said:

Give unto Caesar what its Caesars, and unto God what is God's.   What exactly is not God's?   Jesus is joking about the fact that all these patriots are carrying Occupation money bearing graven images, surely? 

If all belongs to God, he is a poor caretaker who kills and never cures those he thinks defective which shown a God without decent morals.

Absentee landlords cannot collect the rent nor can a deadbeat dad be relavant to the children he ignores.

Regards

DL

 

 

Edited by French Patriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 6:00 PM, French Patriot said:

Is secular law inferior or superior to the laws of the Gods?

 

Regards

DL


I had a topic which may be related to this topic. Named "You are ruled by Sharia". Which refers to the similarities between Islamic rules and countries' laws.


As I am saying always, logic based on the same info will come together in the same place. They cant be dissociated. People disagrees with each other because they dont have the same information (this is not a sustainable disagreement because they will share the info with each other) or most commonly at least one of the sides rejects to recognize information or logic based on the information when it does not fit with their personal interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Altai said:


I had a topic which may be related to this topic. Named "You are ruled by Sharia". Which refers to the similarities between Islamic rules and countries' laws.


As I am saying always, logic based on the same info will come together in the same place. They cant be dissociated. People disagrees with each other because they dont have the same information (this is not a sustainable disagreement because they will share the info with each other) or most commonly at least one of the sides rejects to recognize information or logic based on the information when it does not fit with their personal interests.

No argument, but you did not answer the quote you picked up?

Are you not able to evaluate things from what you know?

Regards

DL

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, French Patriot said:

No argument, but you did not answer the quote you picked up?

Are you not able to evaluate things from what you know?

Regards

DL

 

 


Okay I will talk in accordance with your IQ level.

We make laws based on their rationality. We say its illegal to run in red light in traffic because it will cause disorders. Does not matter whether or not this law was told us in a religious book or we find it out ourselves. Its logical in any case and therefore its superior because its logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:00 PM, French Patriot said:

Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?

 

Do you theists crave God’s law on earth, --- or do you think Jesus was saying that secular law was better?

 

Giving to Caesar includes loyalty and allegiance to the law of the land.

 

Jesus would not recommend an inferior justice system.  

 

I guess that the choice is between God’s tyranny, --- and liberty to only follow the law, --- another tyranny, --- which has already negated any notion of freedom for man.

 

Is secular law inferior or superior to the laws of the Gods?

 

Regards

DL

You make assumptions about my position.   Don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Altai said:


Okay I will talk in accordance with your IQ level.

We make laws based on their rationality. We say its illegal to run in red light in traffic because it will cause disorders. Does not matter whether or not this law was told us in a religious book or we find it out ourselves. Its logical in any case and therefore its superior because its logical.

You show your I. Q. level by not being able to say which set of laws are better.

 

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

                        

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

 

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

 

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

 

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.

 

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes.

 

Do you agree?

 

Regards

DL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Thanks for showing where I erred.

Regards

DL

I'm not a theist, and I'd regard the Roman Empire as as nasty, smelly a colonialist regime as there has been

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Penderyn said:

I'm not a theist, and I'd regard the Roman Empire as as nasty, smelly a colonialist regime as there has been

Look at most governments and their corrupted state.

As to my error, you prompted it with your "What exactly is not God's? ".

Everything is not God's.

Fictitious characters cannot claim ownership of anything. Right?

Regards

DL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A secular interpretation of "give unto Ceasar..."

A common theme among all humanity is whether humanity is supremely divine over Nature or whether Nature doesn't care who is or is not supreme. We want to think we are special. And this makes it easy for rulers to use this belief as justification to demand their own power to impose a burden upon others by claiming they ARE 'supreme' by Nature's command rather than just some arbitrary ruler by luck of fortune to have the bigger sword to force others to comply.

The Roman's biggest technological advancement to humanity was to build structures due to their discovery of making cement rather than carving out stones. It enabled them to capitalize upon this technology by building literal structures, including bricks, that paved roads and built bridges that enabled them to have power when they overtook the traditional prior means of trading routes that required only taxes paid upon those particular people making trades. However, this advancement of road and bridge building created a justification to tax people upon fixed property,....those roads and bridges build, that made trading a lot easier. "Ownership" of those structures were initially about those who freely had the option to take advantage of no claim of ownership upon those routes or rivers that people trekked upon. But when this technology acted too make it too easy for most to use rather than the old ways to hire independent 'taxies' (those who traded people or goods by independent means) across routes, taxes (as the meaning similar to our 'taxies' today) seemed to be unfair if everyone were required to pay them universally for those roads and bridges. 

Why, was the question by many, should one pay for a tax on a roads and bridges they were not immediately using. The Romans power lied in the fact that they built this 'infrastructure of roads and bridges to collectively enable trade FOR EVERYONE easier. But because this tech also reduced the NEED for the older ways of hiring specific peoples, the wanderers or "jews" as they were understood then as, who literally used to DO the 'taxi-ing', these taxes were both a perceived enemy to the original transporters (the Jews) AND to those who could not understand the link between the products they received and the costs of building and maintaining those novel infrastructures that no longer required the Jews to deliver. 

The question by many in the Middle East was confused also because in time people took advantage of the system as though it were always there and so should not seem to require being taxed as it seemed to be something 'normal' or Natural by then rather than something artificial. Why should they pay some royalty tax to a system (a government) by force if the force, represented by the leading representative of that system (the King, or Caesar), was himself no different a 'natural' being than themselves. 

The threat risked the transient Jew most dominantly in the very place where Jews also claimed their own authority over: the meeting place of all continents of the time, the middle eastern land-bridge. This economically threatened them as the technology of the devices of roads and bridges no longer needed the very people who originally created the origins of these trading places AT the 'natural bridge' of the Middle Eastern desert. They were the ones who fostered the origin of any settlements made in these harsh lands which themselves required great investment to build. 

This sets the stage. "Jesus Christ" was actually the understood stereotypical phrasal of those people claiming that either they were themselves rightful heirs akin to the 'authority' over taxation (as the King or Caesar represented) or EQUAL in relevance to the right to their own independent POWER to tax without force of some universal authority. The literal translation of "Jesus Christ" is actually, "I am the King" OR "I am as equal to the King". 

This confusion of the two phases is the justification of Jesus's argument. While the charge against his claims against taxation and actions to disrupt were deemed as challenging human rule (as represented by the modern idea of government requiring collecting tax for the infrastructure), the particular "Jesus-Christ" claimant being charged used a rhetorical argument to try to clarify his position as being about equality of each person as 'natural' versus the presumed disrespect of a particular HUMAN, being the man on the coin that many begun to treat as taboo to speak against, the King on that coin.

This theme is ALWAYS true of any transition between tribal life (transient unsettled) versus the settled life (civil organization and set or fixed in place). The rhetoric of Jesus was to try to dispel himself as being essentially some 'enemy' of anyone but pointing out that the head of the coin representing the person taxing is only a human construct that he agrees requires payment as a representative of the infrastructure but NOT one who should be 'worshipped' as though that head represented some actual GOD (supreme nature) that required superior respect over any other individual. This tendency to forget lead, as it still does today, many to think that the literal LEADER of authority as a human was somehow equivalent to the LEADER OF NATURE itself. 

The "I am King (too)"-er was hard to determine by many of that day as either a nutcase or a dangerous fanatic, something hard to determine if they appear confusing by their actions. Were they rebelling out of hate or sincere concern for others? 

"Give respect to (humanity) what is (human). But remember that the reality is that (Nature) is the ruler of EACH of us foremost." His rebellion of taxation represents the confusion of people to be able to determine WHY they are taxed because they cannot interpret the meaning of being taxed directly as an individual 'natural' being versus the whole as a universal 'nature', represented by the universal coin of trade. He was excusing himself among his 'jury' to explain his inappropriate behavior but in a way that others of differing views could relate.

This is my take on this without a need to think of it as religious, ...ironic if one LITERALLY thinks this was a message about this "Jesus" as BEING supreme, ...which misses the point about his argument!  But then the lesson should be that even religious interpretation of "Jesus" as 'supreme' and needing taxation should be questioned.!!??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's long been my belief that the most relevant modern application of the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," is its importance to the concept of separation of church and state. It provides clarity on the role of religion, in particular as a private right, in relation to the broader secular legitimacy and role of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turningrite said:

It's long been my belief that the most relevant modern application of the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," is its importance to the concept of separation of church and state. It provides clarity on the role of religion, in particular as a private right, in relation to the broader secular legitimacy and role of the state.

The most important thing to God would be his commandments.

Yet give to Caesar forces following Rome's law. That would leave God out in the cold.

As to separation of church and state, if you are a politician, that is like telling you that you cannot vote your conscience.

It also indicates that you can somehow leave your spirituality out of your political decisions as if you could split your mind in two and ignore half of your thinking.

Impossible that so separation of church and state is impossible. All one can do is use secular language instead of more spiritual/religious language.

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, French Patriot said:

As to separation of church and state, if you are a politician, that is like telling you that you cannot vote your conscience.

In the Western intellectual tradition, we're taught that it's often necessary to separate our religious views from our behaviors and actions. And our politicians often do so as well. Social policy in Canada, including on abortion and gay rights, has progressed largely as a function of legal decisions which politicians have had little choice but to affirm. They have to pass laws consistent with rights courts have determined to be constitutionally valid. Reportedly, many cabinet ministers and MPs balked at changing laws to implement gay rights in Canada following the SCC's affirmation of the existence of these rights, but these politicians had to accede to the philosophy of separation of church and state and adhere to the logic and direction of the courts. Not only do our leaders now tell their subordinates they can't vote or express their conscience, they openly reject the nominations of candidates who openly oppose party policy on grounds of conscience. So, to suppose that separation of church and state isn't an operative philosophy in Canadian politics is to fail to acknowledge reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that one ought to be able to "vote their conscience" and impose their religious views on anyone who doesn't subscribe to them is utterly abhorrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, turningrite said:

In the Western intellectual tradition, we're taught that it's often necessary to separate our religious views from our behaviors and actions. And our politicians often do so as well. Social policy in Canada, including on abortion and gay rights, has progressed largely as a function of legal decisions which politicians have had little choice but to affirm. They have to pass laws consistent with rights courts have determined to be constitutionally valid. Reportedly, many cabinet ministers and MPs balked at changing laws to implement gay rights in Canada following the SCC's affirmation of the existence of these rights, but these politicians had to accede to the philosophy of separation of church and state and adhere to the logic and direction of the courts. Not only do our leaders now tell their subordinates they can't vote or express their conscience, they openly reject the nominations of candidates who openly oppose party policy on grounds of conscience. So, to suppose that separation of church and state isn't an operative philosophy in Canadian politics is to fail to acknowledge reality.

To not acknowledge that any politician can vote their conscience, when it is done in many instances, is rather odd.

There is nothing in the voting rules that say a politician must follow constitutional guidelines. That is what a free vote is all about.

No argument that some parties do try to enforce following party lines but there is nothing that says the backbencher must do so.

The first priority to a politician is to be elected and if the majority of his constituent want him to vote a certain way, you can likely bet that he will vote their way.

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The notion that one ought to be able to "vote their conscience" and impose their religious views on anyone who doesn't subscribe to them is utterly abhorrent.

That would not happen unless he is in the majority and the law would likely use secular law language and not biblical jargon..

If something is too far out in religion land, as just happened in the U.S. with the Texas laws tightening the noose on abortion rights, hopefully the courts would scrap the law just like it just did.

Ford, if he does the same, as he said he will, will likely be overruled by our own courts.

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, turningrite said:

It's long been my belief that the most relevant modern application of the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," is its importance to the concept of separation of church and state. It provides clarity on the role of religion, in particular as a private right, in relation to the broader secular legitimacy and role of the state.

I believe this is ONE latter interpretation but what I mentioned above is more in sync with the ancient times. Religion, myth, or even poetry and entertainment, often 'fit' with alternative explanations that DO get used to great affect when the actual origins had some completely different meaning.

(This is like the stereotype of the rock-star spitting in their fan's faces when the fan interprets their art in some self-unique way that the artist may feel insulted by the actual reasons they wrote about. [Pink Floyd speaks of this theme in "The Wall", as one example, and Roger Waters, of that band, literally did spit in a fan's face trying to get the point he was making ABOUT the very problem being misinterpreted in the album!])

The separation of church and state do relate indirectly though but secondarily, like an corollary is to a theorem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, turningrite said:

In the Western intellectual tradition, ...

Not only do our leaders now tell their subordinates they can't vote or express their conscience, they openly reject the nominations of candidates who openly oppose party policy on grounds of conscience. So, to suppose that separation of church and state isn't an operative philosophy in Canadian politics is to fail to acknowledge reality.

The wording was intentional in our Constitution to blur the distinction, but 'freedom of conscience' is NOT 'freedom to express those feelings'. Note that 'conscience' is more specific a word to refer to one's moral interpretation in one's head, not in their actions. We do NOT have the same freedoms guaranteed as the U.S.'s "First Amendment"! It cannot be this while they also command special rights to the select historical groups they protect for perpetuity based on religious grounds. 

Our opening preamble to the Charter of Rights within the constitution TELLS us we are founded on the principles of God...and thus, a pseudo-theocratic institute by default, not one intended to separate church and state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, French Patriot said:

To not acknowledge that any politician can vote their conscience, when it is done in many instances, is rather odd.

 

Our system gives the law precedence over conscience. Sorry to loop you in on this, but it's a fact. We live in a system based on the rule of law rather than the rule of conscience. We can disagree with the law but for the most part we're obligated to comply with it. As for politicians, whether in Canada or elsewhere in the West - but particularly in Canada - there's been an increasing emphasis on party discipline, whereby individual politicians, whether elected or prospective candidates, must comply with directives set by their parties and party leaders. It's increasingly become the norm. Even in the U.S., which doesn't have a parliamentary system that compels party discipline, voting statistics indicate increasing adherence to such discipline.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2017/12/13/a-growing-cancer-on-congress-the-curse-of-party-line-voting/#649c6b3c6139

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...