Boy did the SCOTUS ever botch that Hobby Lobby case. Ginsberg said they opened Pandora’s box and she was right. Look at this circus. “The Bible says I don’t have to sell **you people** a cake, it’s the law and it’s my firmly held religious belief!”
WWJD? I’ll tell you what I’d do, but very few have been listening for the last two thousand or so years so I don’t really think it matters much. I’d love everybody as the humans they are, and I’d sure quit hating in my name. We’ll see how that works out, you people have sure been screwing it up since I left. Also, I’d be careful what I ask dad for, he’s still pissed that Russell didn’t give the ball to Marshawn. If you’re going to bother dad with your petty requests, at least listen to what he says. Dad bless all.
A: You operate under the assumption they won’t be able to get a cake, and that it is damaging them. They will be able to get a cake and it isn’t.
B: You operate under the assumption on the counter, hey, your religion says that the Sin of Sodom is even inaction regarding gay behavior, and certainly baking a cake would fall into the category of support. So just violate your religion, and it’s ok because…No reason, so force them to go against their beliefs. That’s actually not ok.
C: WWJD? You don’t know anything about the bible if you don’t already know that he would say “Let the business owners make their choice, I will hold whomever is guilty accountable”
The bible says explicitly a great deal many things, but one spot you should focus on is the spot that goes over governments and businesses. You should note it says you are not Christian if you rebel against or assert dominance over either of the two, that they are there for you, and that you are absolutely only capable of earning favor by allowing them to do what they are meant to do, and if they wrong you, God will handle it. This is even disregarding…Go to another bakery. A cake isn’t even what the passage I was talking about was dealing with. It was talking about being cheated wages, considered to be the highest offense in the bible and God still said you will not rebel against the business owner. By tolerating it you earn favor with God. By rebelling against it you rebel against the system he put in place.
God will not handle it, because God doesn’t exist. But you’re saying that if a business owner rapes your duaghter, you should not rebel against the business owner. “By tolerating it you earn favor with God. By rebelling against it you rebel against the system he put in place.”
Obviously bob can speak for himself, but it appears he’s saying that, basically, anyone who rebels against or attempts to assert dominance over any government or business cannot consider themselves a true Christian.
Did we misunderstand you, bob, or is that correct: a true Christian will take no action (letting god take action instead) if they believe the government or a business is doing them any harm?
First quote: Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
Further quotes regarding this specifically say to rebel against a government (in this case it is more talking about fighting, not voting, or speaking viciously of it which insights hatred and eventual events like the French Revolution, where like it or not the poor were completely out of line, and did not earn favor with God for the beheadings) is not to earn favor with God.
He talked biblically, I answered biblically.
So yes. Speaking hateful of the government, calling out treason for saying a corporation has rights, etc is not Christian.
April 9, 2015 at 3:24 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Thank you for explaining that, bob
April 9, 2015 at 3:32 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m sorry Bob, but that’s not what that quote means. It was actually a very cleverly worded way of saying that the land was actually God’s and not Caesar’s.
He couldn’t outright say to not pay pay the tribute. To do so would have had him hauled up on treason charges right then and there. So he said that the tribute should be given to Caesar. Not because Caesar owned the land, and deserved payment for it; but because his face was on the coin, making the money itself his: Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give back to God what is God’s.
Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:19-26:
“15.Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16.And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17.Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18.But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19.Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20.And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 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. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.”
April 9, 2015 at 4:10 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
I am not referring to give unto Caesar as my primary quote.
There are many quotes saying the only way to earn favor with god is to bless those who curse you.
April 9, 2015 at 4:27 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also BS:
Look at your own quote.
You basically just argued my point without knowing it.
Re-read your post.
Caesar was oppressive with taxes. The money was still considered to be his, despite oppressing the people.
You say the face on the coin was the point of contention. It wasn’t. The money doesn’t own the land which was taxed. It pays for it. His face isn’t on the land is it? So what attached the tax on the land or goods to Caesar? That they were of Caesar’s government and his.
I don’t know how you flew right past the point, but my other quote explicitly deals with this.
April 9, 2015 at 4:35 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks for clarifying, Bob. The “give unto Caesar” is one of my favorite Jesus quotes, because it shows just how clever he really was, so I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t being incorrectly applied.
April 10, 2015 at 11:28 am
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hi Bob,
Sorry to respond a second time on this, but my ‘Thank you for clarifying’ comment posted before I saw your ‘You basically just argued my point without knowing it’ comment, and I realized that I probably needed to clarify, myself.
I didn’t say that the face on the coin was the point of contention. Only that the face on the coin indicated the ownership of it.
The zealots of that time believed strongly that the land belonged to God, only. They were opposed to the Roman occupation, and the paying of any tribute to Rome. Not paying tribute to Rome, or speaking out against it was seen as treason, and many zealots were put to death for it.
By asking him whether he believed tribute should be paid to Rome, the Pharisees were trying to prove that Jesus was a zealot. If he had said no, they would have had him arrested and put to death for sedition. Knowing this, Jesus found a way to answer the question that wouldn’t immediately have him branded as a zealot, but was still in line with his teachings.
His statement was not an agreement that the land or goods was Caesar’s, and that they should pay the tribute to Rome for use of it. Instead he was saying that the coin, and only the coin belonged to Caesar. That regardless of Rome’s claim, the land was God’s, and God’s alone. Basically, he was saying “Give Rome back it’s money – this is God’s land.” But he did it in such a way that they couldn’t nail him for it.
It really was a brilliant answer.
April 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Go look into theologists on the matter BS.
I’m aware of the genius of Jesus’s answer. However, you’re wrong about the fact that Jesus was placing the land in God’s authority and the gold into Caesar’s. He was definitely declaring that it was Caesar’s, everything on the earth is man’s.
Douay-Rheims translation and King James are widely acclaimed translations. What do you notice?
“And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.”
My other quote: ” Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.
2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the LAND are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow”
What do you notice here? Just like God put man in charge of Earth, he put governments in charge of man. Caesar is the law of the land. God is the law of God.
God will eventually cast the wicked out, but for now, they are the law of the land, the authority of the land, and what they say is not yours, is not yours. It is Caesar’s.
April 10, 2015 at 12:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That was worded poorly, the wicked aren’t in authority.
The wicked will be cast out, and for now the Caesar’s and governments are the law of the land.
Jesus had them pay Caesar not because just the gold was his, but because the land was as well. It wasn’t his concern. He made things to work out for all people, to benefit us, the government and Caesar while both particularly wicked at the time, both do good for the people. Also, they have the people earn god’s favor by learning to go through pain and still be good people.
April 10, 2015 at 12:45 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have read different theologists. And based on what was happening at that time, the political climate, and the numerous people that claimed to be the messiah who would liberate the Jews from Roman occupation, I’m more inclined to believe he was claiming the land to be God’s and not Caesar’s.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
April 10, 2015 at 1:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And who does God say owns the land?
Caesar.
That scripture was talking about God being king of God’s Kingdom, Caesar having his kingdom.
Caesar’s kingdom was not a coin.
You’re just plainly wrong here.
April 10, 2015 at 1:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also,
What was the point of the quote then?
The question was asked to trick him into saying that he was there to claim God’s land. Not god’s coins. They were afraid that the true prophet would overturn the nations. Instead God submitted to them. You are basically blaspheming the entire reason Jesus/God came.
Why did he get crucified? To take dominion over the earth? No. To take dominion over his Kingdom. He didn’t die for the land, nor did he come to take it over like they thought.
Instead he submitted to governments. Instead, the bible says to submit to governments in the law of the land, and the law of the land is the governments. It makes one exception, which is if your government asks you to steal or disobey God. Jesus did not come to give the land back to God, otherwise the rulers would be gone.
It is reiterated multiple times. You are stating God contradicted himself, and are setting up a scenario which does not make sense.
Do some more research, praying, etc. This isn’t a matter of opinion.
April 10, 2015 at 1:52 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re right. Caesar’s kingdom wasn’t a coin. His Kingdom was Rome and it’s concurred countries. I just think that Jesus was implying that while Caesar’s money might have been in the land, the land itself still truly belonged to God and his chosen people.
As I said, I we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
April 10, 2015 at 2:03 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
*conquered countries
April 10, 2015 at 4:03 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Does my bible quote or does it not say that you are to obey your governments?
Is Jesus or is he not here to make the calls?
Do governments, or do they not make the calls in his absence? The quote I showed you plainly said this.
The bible does what is meant to with faith.
We aren’t going to agree to disagree here. You’re going to admit this is what the bible says.
This is plain out offensive, and it is clearly stated in the bible.
The governments get the say and you obey them.
When Jesus came he reiterated and said to Obey Caesar.
He was not contradicting the other scripture which said to obey governments, and the bible at no point mandates that Caesar give his land to the poor.
It says he will go to hell if he doesn’t.
But it also says you obey your government. What you are saying clearly is that Jesus said “Oh hey guys, submit your money to him, but disobey!”
I’m right on this. Jesus’s meaning did not contradict the bible’s teaching on this which is that you obey the governments as they are the law of the land. You cannot take from governments, neither can Jesus. It is theirs. He will eventually judge those who do wrong.
The poor person doesn’t get to judge, just like the rich doesn’t. They don’t get to impede free will of the rich to do what is bad either.
What you are saying breaks the system. The only possibility is you are encouraging people to reclaim holy lands, (which actually is what happnes due to people making claims like yours, as it is God’s right?) and that Jesus was there to overturn governments. He was not.
April 10, 2015 at 4:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also,
If in fact Jesus was there to return the land to God, and God’s people…
Why didn’t he?
We are talking someone who could have caused a storm, and for them all to die. We are talking the flood, killing all but what was it…6 or 8 people.
You act as if he was restricted as a man. He wasn’t.
So he had no fear of government and political climates. There is no political climate with God.
If his intent was to give them land, and not to obey, and to teach obedience, he would have lead by example.
There is no way you can interpret his quote as saying that the land was being reclaimed by God.
He meant exactly the following:
Do not dis obey your governments, give them what is theirs. Give God what is his. They are not one in the same.
It was separating the two intentionally so people knew they could follow caesar without offending or getting in the way of God.
At no point did it in any way imply that this was giving Caesar’s land to God, or reclaiming it. None.
To state so is so amateur in debate I know for certain you have not studied any credible theologists. Go look into some Catholic or Coptic opinions on this. The Coptic Church is similar to Catholic, only they thought that the Pope was more a title, and they do more of a all are equal priests and follow a different apostle, but you can literally confirm that these guys had the very first known Church. Even before the first known Catholic Churches.
Their opinion would be held the highest, as they literally came from an Apostle, so would the Catholic as they literally came from an apostle.
The didache and documents for how to run the Church were published before 300 ad. The members who wrote that already talked about this topic. So go google it and see their conclusion.
April 10, 2015 at 4:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Coptic Church:
“Despite persecution, the Coptic Church as a religious institution has never been controlled or allowed itself to control the governments in Egypt. This long-held position of the Church concerning the separation between State and Religion stems from the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, when he asked his followers to submit to their rulers: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” [Mathew 22:21]. The Coptic Church has never forcefully resisted authorities or invaders and was never allied with any powers, for the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are clear: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mathew 26:52). The miraculous survival of the Coptic Church till this day and age is a living proof of the validity and wisdom of these teachings. ”
They say that render onto Caesar was teaching to Obey Governments. They go so far as to say they do not forcefully resist invaders.
The two oldest structured Churches on this have already spoken.
April 10, 2015 at 5:04 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, I’m not going to fight with you over this. You interpret the passage one way, I interpret it another. And that’s fine.
You’ve explained why you used that quote as the reason why people should obey their governments. Although I disagree with your interpretation, I understand where you are coming from, and why you used it.
And once again, I agree to disagree.
April 9, 2015 at 2:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I said nothing of the sort.
Raping your daughter is not akin to a business owner saying he doesn’t want to sell you a cake.
Furthermore: When someone throws out WWJD, they are kind of restricted to the bible by that point.
Not mocking Christians for what they believe a hypothetical Jesus would do that they themselves made up.
The bible does say that you must follow the government UNLESS doing so would Violate god’s law.
Remind me…What does the bible say about rape?
Do you even know?
It goes as far to say that if a family finds out someone in their family raped a family member, and does nothing, that they shall be destroyed, and their descendants will be destroyed. This is not them supporting the rapist. It is simply taking no action.
It is taken rather seriously.
There are some who twist two sections to say it supports rape, but they misinterpret the sections.
There is one that says if a man rapes a woman that he will pay the father (who would care for the woman, which is why they would pay the father) and then he is married to her for life. In that scenario, it is basically not saying married how you think. It means he must provide for the woman for life. It even clarifies that if the woman’s father does not approve of the woman marrying the man who raped her, that the woman does not have to, and is still free to marry whomever she wants.
The second is a quote that says if a woman sneaks out in the night, and makes no noise when she is “raped” then she is condemned. In this case, it is not saying if she is raped and doesn’t scream she is not raped. It is not saying that she needs to scream to be raped. It is talking about sneaking out, not screaming, and then she lies and says she is raped. Essentially to lie and do it is worse, so the punishment is more severe.
This is also why the woman takes one hell of a punishment in that scenario, while the man is as woman and idiots have said it “let off the hook”. He isn’t, but he also wasn’t the one that was sneaking out in the night and lying about rape. That is what the quote deals with.
I have had enough happen in my life that it is an absolute.
Also, there is an argument as to how 12 men would have had the ability to write so well, would not have motivation to create a bible in the central hub of an oppressive government that would kill them for doing so without God being it, etc.
It is a solid argument.
God exists. Period. There is no question. Now whether he works exactly like the Christian bible, or merely appeared to those people in that way is a different story open for debate.
I will emphasize this again as people saw this happen in my life:
I knew my father was going to die. I don’t care how looney you call me for it. A week before he died I showed him the book I would first read to my daughter, and told her it would be his first book. I told him this as a goodbye, the mother of my children witnessed it and later asked how the hell I didn’t believe in God by this point. I flat out told her that something inside me was screaming to me that he was going to die, out of nowhere. I made preparations. My father died young. So what…Was I psychic? Does that make more sense? I defined a purpose at that point. Not many people get the goodbye I got.
God is real. End of story. That isn’t the only event in my life either.
Discrimination, by itself, is not a disease. One must discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong, left and right, up and down as well as tolerable and intolerable. Is not wanting to cater a same-sex marriage any worse than a clothing store discriminating against overweight individuals by selling small sizes? We all have a right to make our own choices and we all have a responsibility to use our freedom wisely. First Corinthians 10:23 says “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. Verse 24 says No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. Let heterosexuals and homosexuals both look to the good of others.
Why is this such an issue now? 20 states (Il Included) and the fed govt have something similar. Obama himself – when he was a senator – signed onto this. Does that make OBama Anti gay? Besides, none of what I read in the Indiana bill states anything about gays.
What Business I do have in Indiana all agree (the ones that I have talked to about this) – they want the right to refuse service. Someone being a pain in the a#@ during the quoting process – do you want that on your books? Or do you inflate the quote to avoid having to deal with them?
FFA, it is an issue because the left leaning media who favor the gay crowd is making it an issue. They don’t care who they put out of business for following their religious beliefs. Hey, there are plenty of gay bakeries, florists out there who will cater to them, why not use them instead of attacking small businesses? By the way, when the gay crowd attacked and boycotted Chick Fil A for their beliefs a few years ago, business increased about 3 fold for Chick Fil A. They could weather the storm and get stronger, small businesses often go out of business. I hope the folks come to the rescue of the pizza store that is closed now.
We are a nation of laws, and the laws apply to everyone. They can believe whatever they choose to believe, but that doesn’t give them the right to be exempt from the laws that everyone else must follow. Before you know it, religious con artists will be saying that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes because America allows homosexuality.
That has been the law of mankind since the beginning. The law of the government shall not infringe on basic rights.
You don’t argue this same thing on laws you know shouldn’t exist. For example, I suppose in the states where gay marriage is illegal it is the law of the land. You must follow it.
Your example of not paying taxes is not at all the same as choosing who you serve.
If I don’t want to make a cake for a wedding, I am more than sure they can find someone else to make the cake.
It is in fact the gay person being the oppressor in this scenario. Not the person who runs a business saying he doesn’t want to provide for their wedding. They can for a fact go somewhere else, which leads me to this:
What was the motive of the gay couple who did this?
Solely to screw the owners? Force their way?
If I was refused service I would go somewhere else. Not try to pass laws requiring people serve me.
Let’s say for example a Muslim says his faith requires he eat his cake in the business establishment who is selling it. Should he suddenly get laws passed that this Christian owner now must abide by the Muslim religion and tradition? This guy operates a cake store for God’s sakes (pun intended)
April 2, 2015 at 5:42 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
7
5
FFA, that little pizzeria in Indiana that was shut down had death threats against them by the leftist idiots has received $100,000 from the public through a website set up for them. If they aren’t burned down, they may just make it.
What Obama signed nearly 20 year ago and what the other states have are VASTLY different than what Indiana first put forth. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens. This means it could be used by corporations to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law. And this is not the only difference.
and so you think they demand special rights? you are a ignorant paid troll of the rethuglican Nazi dying party..they have been persecuted for thousands of years just like jews..they want equality idiot..there will be a revolution if you thugs bring back 1950s style segregation and I hope it does happen and all the republicans get hung they need to be..there against equality and prosperity so they can get richer off the backs of ignorant idiots like you
The complete and utter lack of history of Republicans and Democrats in our country is hilarious. Funny how you advocate for 1950’s style segregation and hanging people; must be a true Democrat.
I think the pizza joint was all publicity. I heard their donations total was over $250,000. Discrimination turns profit just like Chick Fila.
Nobody reports on it, no one cares. They get on the news everyone from both sides care.
FFA – I think you are right. It sure does seem that the Right Wing has more than their fair share of low information donors. But will it be enough to counterbalance the low information voters that they say the Left has??? We shall see in 2016.
I think they were very well informed. They all stood up in support of a business that had to shut their doors because they stood up and said what they believe. So much for speaking your own mind and thinking they way you want to think.
Well, I don’t know a lot of gay people – 2 that I can say for sure and are out. I suspect more, but that is all I can confirm. But what I do know is that they would not have a pizza joint cater their wedding.
I personally could care less if your gay or not. But I was thinking I should put up the same sign. I’ll either get a ton of donations or business will boom…
I saw the interview with the pizza business owner that said she wouldn’t cater a gay wedding — but later said, she had never been asked. I wish they would have asked — if someone asked you to cater a divorce party with pizza (a much more realistic venue), since Jesus talked against divorce multiple times and never once is recorded talking against being gay — what would the pizza owner do????
For this reason man shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Note that he spoke of the one, and only marriage. Man and woman.
Also, he didn’t have to reiterate each law. When Jesus was asked about the ten commandments, he answered love your God above all else, and your neighbor as you love yourself. He didn’t quote the rest, and that certainly didn’t mean he took away the 8 other commandments.
Further, the people who wrote the gospels of Jesus did talk about Gay behavior. Jesus said that they were not of the world but for it, and the jaws of death would never prevail against his church. He established it with them.
If you are questioning the apostles, who wrote the bibles, then you are questioning every quote Jesus said.
Boy did the SCOTUS ever botch that Hobby Lobby case. Ginsberg said they opened Pandora’s box and she was right. Look at this circus. “The Bible says I don’t have to sell **you people** a cake, it’s the law and it’s my firmly held religious belief!”
WWJD? Not this.
WWJD? I’ll tell you what I’d do, but very few have been listening for the last two thousand or so years so I don’t really think it matters much. I’d love everybody as the humans they are, and I’d sure quit hating in my name. We’ll see how that works out, you people have sure been screwing it up since I left. Also, I’d be careful what I ask dad for, he’s still pissed that Russell didn’t give the ball to Marshawn. If you’re going to bother dad with your petty requests, at least listen to what he says. Dad bless all.
Jesus Hussein Christ! You get off that computer! You’re still grounded!
Awright, awright, does this mean I have to stay in my tomb? How did you know my middle name?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
God will not handle it, because God doesn’t exist. But you’re saying that if a business owner rapes your duaghter, you should not rebel against the business owner. “By tolerating it you earn favor with God. By rebelling against it you rebel against the system he put in place.”
Obviously bob can speak for himself, but it appears he’s saying that, basically, anyone who rebels against or attempts to assert dominance over any government or business cannot consider themselves a true Christian.
Did we misunderstand you, bob, or is that correct: a true Christian will take no action (letting god take action instead) if they believe the government or a business is doing them any harm?
It is what the bible states to do Rosenblatt.
First quote: Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
Further quotes regarding this specifically say to rebel against a government (in this case it is more talking about fighting, not voting, or speaking viciously of it which insights hatred and eventual events like the French Revolution, where like it or not the poor were completely out of line, and did not earn favor with God for the beheadings) is not to earn favor with God.
He talked biblically, I answered biblically.
So yes. Speaking hateful of the government, calling out treason for saying a corporation has rights, etc is not Christian.
Thank you for explaining that, bob
I’m sorry Bob, but that’s not what that quote means. It was actually a very cleverly worded way of saying that the land was actually God’s and not Caesar’s.
He couldn’t outright say to not pay pay the tribute. To do so would have had him hauled up on treason charges right then and there. So he said that the tribute should be given to Caesar. Not because Caesar owned the land, and deserved payment for it; but because his face was on the coin, making the money itself his: Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give back to God what is God’s.
Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:19-26:
“15.Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16.And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17.Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18.But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19.Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20.And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 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. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.”
BS:
I am not referring to give unto Caesar as my primary quote.
There are simply too many to put together.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nlt/romans/13.html
Here is one referencing obeying governments.
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-9.htm
There are many quotes saying the only way to earn favor with god is to bless those who curse you.
Also BS:
Look at your own quote.
You basically just argued my point without knowing it.
Re-read your post.
Caesar was oppressive with taxes. The money was still considered to be his, despite oppressing the people.
You say the face on the coin was the point of contention. It wasn’t. The money doesn’t own the land which was taxed. It pays for it. His face isn’t on the land is it? So what attached the tax on the land or goods to Caesar? That they were of Caesar’s government and his.
I don’t know how you flew right past the point, but my other quote explicitly deals with this.
Thanks for clarifying, Bob. The “give unto Caesar” is one of my favorite Jesus quotes, because it shows just how clever he really was, so I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t being incorrectly applied.
Hi Bob,
Sorry to respond a second time on this, but my ‘Thank you for clarifying’ comment posted before I saw your ‘You basically just argued my point without knowing it’ comment, and I realized that I probably needed to clarify, myself.
I didn’t say that the face on the coin was the point of contention. Only that the face on the coin indicated the ownership of it.
The zealots of that time believed strongly that the land belonged to God, only. They were opposed to the Roman occupation, and the paying of any tribute to Rome. Not paying tribute to Rome, or speaking out against it was seen as treason, and many zealots were put to death for it.
By asking him whether he believed tribute should be paid to Rome, the Pharisees were trying to prove that Jesus was a zealot. If he had said no, they would have had him arrested and put to death for sedition. Knowing this, Jesus found a way to answer the question that wouldn’t immediately have him branded as a zealot, but was still in line with his teachings.
His statement was not an agreement that the land or goods was Caesar’s, and that they should pay the tribute to Rome for use of it. Instead he was saying that the coin, and only the coin belonged to Caesar. That regardless of Rome’s claim, the land was God’s, and God’s alone. Basically, he was saying “Give Rome back it’s money – this is God’s land.” But he did it in such a way that they couldn’t nail him for it.
It really was a brilliant answer.
Go look into theologists on the matter BS.
I’m aware of the genius of Jesus’s answer. However, you’re wrong about the fact that Jesus was placing the land in God’s authority and the gold into Caesar’s. He was definitely declaring that it was Caesar’s, everything on the earth is man’s.
First quote,
http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm
Douay-Rheims translation and King James are widely acclaimed translations. What do you notice?
“And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.”
My other quote: ” Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.
2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the LAND are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow”
What do you notice here? Just like God put man in charge of Earth, he put governments in charge of man. Caesar is the law of the land. God is the law of God.
God will eventually cast the wicked out, but for now, they are the law of the land, the authority of the land, and what they say is not yours, is not yours. It is Caesar’s.
That was worded poorly, the wicked aren’t in authority.
The wicked will be cast out, and for now the Caesar’s and governments are the law of the land.
Jesus had them pay Caesar not because just the gold was his, but because the land was as well. It wasn’t his concern. He made things to work out for all people, to benefit us, the government and Caesar while both particularly wicked at the time, both do good for the people. Also, they have the people earn god’s favor by learning to go through pain and still be good people.
I have read different theologists. And based on what was happening at that time, the political climate, and the numerous people that claimed to be the messiah who would liberate the Jews from Roman occupation, I’m more inclined to believe he was claiming the land to be God’s and not Caesar’s.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
And who does God say owns the land?
Caesar.
That scripture was talking about God being king of God’s Kingdom, Caesar having his kingdom.
Caesar’s kingdom was not a coin.
You’re just plainly wrong here.
Also,
What was the point of the quote then?
The question was asked to trick him into saying that he was there to claim God’s land. Not god’s coins. They were afraid that the true prophet would overturn the nations. Instead God submitted to them. You are basically blaspheming the entire reason Jesus/God came.
Why did he get crucified? To take dominion over the earth? No. To take dominion over his Kingdom. He didn’t die for the land, nor did he come to take it over like they thought.
Instead he submitted to governments. Instead, the bible says to submit to governments in the law of the land, and the law of the land is the governments. It makes one exception, which is if your government asks you to steal or disobey God. Jesus did not come to give the land back to God, otherwise the rulers would be gone.
It is reiterated multiple times. You are stating God contradicted himself, and are setting up a scenario which does not make sense.
Do some more research, praying, etc. This isn’t a matter of opinion.
You’re right. Caesar’s kingdom wasn’t a coin. His Kingdom was Rome and it’s concurred countries. I just think that Jesus was implying that while Caesar’s money might have been in the land, the land itself still truly belonged to God and his chosen people.
As I said, I we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
*conquered countries
Does my bible quote or does it not say that you are to obey your governments?
Is Jesus or is he not here to make the calls?
Do governments, or do they not make the calls in his absence? The quote I showed you plainly said this.
The bible does what is meant to with faith.
We aren’t going to agree to disagree here. You’re going to admit this is what the bible says.
This is plain out offensive, and it is clearly stated in the bible.
The governments get the say and you obey them.
When Jesus came he reiterated and said to Obey Caesar.
He was not contradicting the other scripture which said to obey governments, and the bible at no point mandates that Caesar give his land to the poor.
It says he will go to hell if he doesn’t.
But it also says you obey your government. What you are saying clearly is that Jesus said “Oh hey guys, submit your money to him, but disobey!”
I’m right on this. Jesus’s meaning did not contradict the bible’s teaching on this which is that you obey the governments as they are the law of the land. You cannot take from governments, neither can Jesus. It is theirs. He will eventually judge those who do wrong.
The poor person doesn’t get to judge, just like the rich doesn’t. They don’t get to impede free will of the rich to do what is bad either.
What you are saying breaks the system. The only possibility is you are encouraging people to reclaim holy lands, (which actually is what happnes due to people making claims like yours, as it is God’s right?) and that Jesus was there to overturn governments. He was not.
Also,
If in fact Jesus was there to return the land to God, and God’s people…
Why didn’t he?
We are talking someone who could have caused a storm, and for them all to die. We are talking the flood, killing all but what was it…6 or 8 people.
You act as if he was restricted as a man. He wasn’t.
So he had no fear of government and political climates. There is no political climate with God.
If his intent was to give them land, and not to obey, and to teach obedience, he would have lead by example.
There is no way you can interpret his quote as saying that the land was being reclaimed by God.
He meant exactly the following:
Do not dis obey your governments, give them what is theirs. Give God what is his. They are not one in the same.
It was separating the two intentionally so people knew they could follow caesar without offending or getting in the way of God.
At no point did it in any way imply that this was giving Caesar’s land to God, or reclaiming it. None.
To state so is so amateur in debate I know for certain you have not studied any credible theologists. Go look into some Catholic or Coptic opinions on this. The Coptic Church is similar to Catholic, only they thought that the Pope was more a title, and they do more of a all are equal priests and follow a different apostle, but you can literally confirm that these guys had the very first known Church. Even before the first known Catholic Churches.
Their opinion would be held the highest, as they literally came from an Apostle, so would the Catholic as they literally came from an apostle.
The didache and documents for how to run the Church were published before 300 ad. The members who wrote that already talked about this topic. So go google it and see their conclusion.
Coptic Church:
“Despite persecution, the Coptic Church as a religious institution has never been controlled or allowed itself to control the governments in Egypt. This long-held position of the Church concerning the separation between State and Religion stems from the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, when he asked his followers to submit to their rulers: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” [Mathew 22:21]. The Coptic Church has never forcefully resisted authorities or invaders and was never allied with any powers, for the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are clear: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mathew 26:52). The miraculous survival of the Coptic Church till this day and age is a living proof of the validity and wisdom of these teachings. ”
They say that render onto Caesar was teaching to Obey Governments. They go so far as to say they do not forcefully resist invaders.
Catholic Church Stance:
https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/766/Render_Unto_Caesar.html
The two oldest structured Churches on this have already spoken.
Bob, I’m not going to fight with you over this. You interpret the passage one way, I interpret it another. And that’s fine.
You’ve explained why you used that quote as the reason why people should obey their governments. Although I disagree with your interpretation, I understand where you are coming from, and why you used it.
And once again, I agree to disagree.
I said nothing of the sort.
Raping your daughter is not akin to a business owner saying he doesn’t want to sell you a cake.
Furthermore: When someone throws out WWJD, they are kind of restricted to the bible by that point.
Not mocking Christians for what they believe a hypothetical Jesus would do that they themselves made up.
And further Shirley,
The bible does say that you must follow the government UNLESS doing so would Violate god’s law.
Remind me…What does the bible say about rape?
Do you even know?
It goes as far to say that if a family finds out someone in their family raped a family member, and does nothing, that they shall be destroyed, and their descendants will be destroyed. This is not them supporting the rapist. It is simply taking no action.
It is taken rather seriously.
There are some who twist two sections to say it supports rape, but they misinterpret the sections.
There is one that says if a man rapes a woman that he will pay the father (who would care for the woman, which is why they would pay the father) and then he is married to her for life. In that scenario, it is basically not saying married how you think. It means he must provide for the woman for life. It even clarifies that if the woman’s father does not approve of the woman marrying the man who raped her, that the woman does not have to, and is still free to marry whomever she wants.
The second is a quote that says if a woman sneaks out in the night, and makes no noise when she is “raped” then she is condemned. In this case, it is not saying if she is raped and doesn’t scream she is not raped. It is not saying that she needs to scream to be raped. It is talking about sneaking out, not screaming, and then she lies and says she is raped. Essentially to lie and do it is worse, so the punishment is more severe.
This is also why the woman takes one hell of a punishment in that scenario, while the man is as woman and idiots have said it “let off the hook”. He isn’t, but he also wasn’t the one that was sneaking out in the night and lying about rape. That is what the quote deals with.
Also:
Yes. God exists.
I have had enough happen in my life that it is an absolute.
Also, there is an argument as to how 12 men would have had the ability to write so well, would not have motivation to create a bible in the central hub of an oppressive government that would kill them for doing so without God being it, etc.
It is a solid argument.
God exists. Period. There is no question. Now whether he works exactly like the Christian bible, or merely appeared to those people in that way is a different story open for debate.
I will emphasize this again as people saw this happen in my life:
I knew my father was going to die. I don’t care how looney you call me for it. A week before he died I showed him the book I would first read to my daughter, and told her it would be his first book. I told him this as a goodbye, the mother of my children witnessed it and later asked how the hell I didn’t believe in God by this point. I flat out told her that something inside me was screaming to me that he was going to die, out of nowhere. I made preparations. My father died young. So what…Was I psychic? Does that make more sense? I defined a purpose at that point. Not many people get the goodbye I got.
God is real. End of story. That isn’t the only event in my life either.
Should read told him it would be her first book.
Discrimination, by itself, is not a disease. One must discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong, left and right, up and down as well as tolerable and intolerable. Is not wanting to cater a same-sex marriage any worse than a clothing store discriminating against overweight individuals by selling small sizes? We all have a right to make our own choices and we all have a responsibility to use our freedom wisely. First Corinthians 10:23 says “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. Verse 24 says No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. Let heterosexuals and homosexuals both look to the good of others.
Why is this such an issue now? 20 states (Il Included) and the fed govt have something similar. Obama himself – when he was a senator – signed onto this. Does that make OBama Anti gay? Besides, none of what I read in the Indiana bill states anything about gays.
What Business I do have in Indiana all agree (the ones that I have talked to about this) – they want the right to refuse service. Someone being a pain in the a#@ during the quoting process – do you want that on your books? Or do you inflate the quote to avoid having to deal with them?
FFA, it is an issue because the left leaning media who favor the gay crowd is making it an issue. They don’t care who they put out of business for following their religious beliefs. Hey, there are plenty of gay bakeries, florists out there who will cater to them, why not use them instead of attacking small businesses? By the way, when the gay crowd attacked and boycotted Chick Fil A for their beliefs a few years ago, business increased about 3 fold for Chick Fil A. They could weather the storm and get stronger, small businesses often go out of business. I hope the folks come to the rescue of the pizza store that is closed now.
We are a nation of laws, and the laws apply to everyone. They can believe whatever they choose to believe, but that doesn’t give them the right to be exempt from the laws that everyone else must follow. Before you know it, religious con artists will be saying that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes because America allows homosexuality.
Who I choose to serve is my choice.
That has been the law of mankind since the beginning. The law of the government shall not infringe on basic rights.
You don’t argue this same thing on laws you know shouldn’t exist. For example, I suppose in the states where gay marriage is illegal it is the law of the land. You must follow it.
Your example of not paying taxes is not at all the same as choosing who you serve.
If I don’t want to make a cake for a wedding, I am more than sure they can find someone else to make the cake.
It is in fact the gay person being the oppressor in this scenario. Not the person who runs a business saying he doesn’t want to provide for their wedding. They can for a fact go somewhere else, which leads me to this:
What was the motive of the gay couple who did this?
Solely to screw the owners? Force their way?
If I was refused service I would go somewhere else. Not try to pass laws requiring people serve me.
Let’s say for example a Muslim says his faith requires he eat his cake in the business establishment who is selling it. Should he suddenly get laws passed that this Christian owner now must abide by the Muslim religion and tradition? This guy operates a cake store for God’s sakes (pun intended)
FFA, that little pizzeria in Indiana that was shut down had death threats against them by the leftist idiots has received $100,000 from the public through a website set up for them. If they aren’t burned down, they may just make it.
What Obama signed nearly 20 year ago and what the other states have are VASTLY different than what Indiana first put forth. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens. This means it could be used by corporations to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law. And this is not the only difference.
Yup…that sure is a lot of words.
and so you think they demand special rights? you are a ignorant paid troll of the rethuglican Nazi dying party..they have been persecuted for thousands of years just like jews..they want equality idiot..there will be a revolution if you thugs bring back 1950s style segregation and I hope it does happen and all the republicans get hung they need to be..there against equality and prosperity so they can get richer off the backs of ignorant idiots like you
The complete and utter lack of history of Republicans and Democrats in our country is hilarious. Funny how you advocate for 1950’s style segregation and hanging people; must be a true Democrat.
What is completely missing here is why would gays have a pizza place cater their wedding in the first place???
I think the pizza joint was all publicity. I heard their donations total was over $250,000. Discrimination turns profit just like Chick Fila.
Nobody reports on it, no one cares. They get on the news everyone from both sides care.
FFA – I think you are right. It sure does seem that the Right Wing has more than their fair share of low information donors. But will it be enough to counterbalance the low information voters that they say the Left has??? We shall see in 2016.
I think they were very well informed. They all stood up in support of a business that had to shut their doors because they stood up and said what they believe. So much for speaking your own mind and thinking they way you want to think.
So the low information donors are supporting a business that was never in danger of being called upon to actually cater a gay wedding?
Well, I don’t know a lot of gay people – 2 that I can say for sure and are out. I suspect more, but that is all I can confirm. But what I do know is that they would not have a pizza joint cater their wedding.
I personally could care less if your gay or not. But I was thinking I should put up the same sign. I’ll either get a ton of donations or business will boom…
I saw the interview with the pizza business owner that said she wouldn’t cater a gay wedding — but later said, she had never been asked. I wish they would have asked — if someone asked you to cater a divorce party with pizza (a much more realistic venue), since Jesus talked against divorce multiple times and never once is recorded talking against being gay — what would the pizza owner do????
He talked of marriage.
For this reason man shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Note that he spoke of the one, and only marriage. Man and woman.
Also, he didn’t have to reiterate each law. When Jesus was asked about the ten commandments, he answered love your God above all else, and your neighbor as you love yourself. He didn’t quote the rest, and that certainly didn’t mean he took away the 8 other commandments.
Further, the people who wrote the gospels of Jesus did talk about Gay behavior. Jesus said that they were not of the world but for it, and the jaws of death would never prevail against his church. He established it with them.
If you are questioning the apostles, who wrote the bibles, then you are questioning every quote Jesus said.
Jesus spoke on it.
What’s Chic Fila up to these days?
http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/chick-fil-a-makes-major-announcement-liberals-have-no-clue-how-to-respond-2/
They got gay married to the Burger King?
No. To Barry Manilow.