Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

An Apology (and realization)

45 posts in this topic

Posted

Well that's fine, but if they're going to have a building that occupies property land and if they get money of some kind, I would think it's only fair to ask for taxes, and I think Necropolis' idea would be pretty good. I do make a distinction between a church organization and the practitioners of your faith, because at times, they can be very different things, but in this case, I am definitely talking about churches that are more like organizations than humble temples of worship.

Agent Zako likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You'll never see me in any of those gargantuan churches anyway, outside of pure fascination or puzzlement. The larger a "church" gets, the harder it becomes to truly communicate with everyone involved. You're just a number after a while. It's a big issue with the Catholic church, in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right, well I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on that level, leastways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I do think some of the giant Cathedrals are beautiful though. Just looking at the history and the architecture, they really are works of art. As for the tax thing, doesn't Jesus say render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?

Edited by Necropolis (see edit history)
Agent Zako and SilverAlchemic like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I grew up next to one of those mega-churches. The main hall was like something you would see in some high-class concert hall, not a church. All of their sermons had live christian rock bands. I only went in a few times, but the place just felt downright sinister to me, although that might have been since I was a staunch atheist at the time. Sure, everyone was nice, but I never saw them doing any charity work - just keeping kids occupied while their parents went and socialized with all the other rich white christians there.

 

There is a big difference between the giant european cathedrals and stuff like this. One feels more like a monument to a deity, and the other feels like a monument to the worshippers. No religion is perfect, but I think the way America does religion today has a long way to go before it actually reaches something that resembles what it says it stands for.

 

(I tried really hard not to sound rude at all in this post. I don't usually post things about religion because its not my place to judge other people's views or upset them because of my own. fwiw the closest thing I would call myself would be a buddhist agnostic/atheist. If anyone wants me to say more I will but otherwise I won't try to derail this thread at all.)

Edited by emsomniac (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I do think some of the giant Cathedrals are beautiful though. Just looking at the history and the architecture, they really are works of art. As for the tax thing, doesn't Jesus say render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?

Context is key to understanding this phrase. A lot of people misinterpret Jesus, thinking he means we should pay taxes to our own government, since he said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." 

 

In reality, Jesus was saying the exact opposite.

 

In context, the Pharisees had posed a question to Jesus. Being a Rabbi, Jesus is expected to know the Torah by heart, and the Pharisees were trying to trap him. 

 

See, the Romans were attempting to tax the Jewish people. The Jewish people did not like this very much. They believed (rightly) that everything belongs to God. There were uprisings, revolts, and deaths/crucifixions. This is the context by which we must judge the story.

 

The question they pose Jesus is this: "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" Jesus recognized this as a trap. Either he says yes, and denies that everything belongs to God and risk alienating his Jewish followers. Or, he says no, and the Roman soldiers that were in the temple would arrest and/or kill him, because he was going against Rome. The Pharisees did not like Jesus, because they alone were supposed to be the "interpreters of the law." Jesus challenged their authority everywhere he went. They were expecting an answer based in scripture, because Jesus was a Rabbi, and it would have been expected of him to know the Torah by heart.

 

Instead of answering the question, Jesus requested to see one of the Roman coins, a denarius. They had the coin on them. What did this mean? The Pharisees were hypocrites. They were paying tribute and bringing a pagan coin into the temple, which was forbidden. 

 

The coin was a common Roman coin distributed by Tiberius Caesar, and had his official stamp and inscription on its face. It was a powerful coin that showed just how far his empire stretched. It's noteworthy that Jesus did not have this coin on his person. It was the pharisees that produced the coin. 

 

Jesus then asks, "Whose image and inscription is this?"

 

They reply, "Caesars." 

 

A rather terse reply, but it wasn't just "Caesars" face on the coin. It was a coin that showed his magnificence and divine person. Circumscribed around Tiberius is an abbreviation, "TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS," which stands for "Tiberius Caesar Divi August Fili Augustus," which, in turn, translates, "Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus."

 

God stated multiple times (with multiple commandments) that the Jews shall not worship false gods, nor have any god before him. 

 

You could see how this coin could pose an issue for the devout Jew. 

 

Now, we look at Jesus' response:

 

"Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and render unto God what belongs to God." 

 

What does the Torah say belongs to God? Everything. God even declares, "Mine is the silver and mine is the gold." So, then, what is left for Caesar?

 

Caesar claimed that everything within the realm belonged to him. God claims that everything belongs to him. They are not mutually exclusive. The listeners had to choose a side. Romans not well versed in the Torah would interpret his response pretty much like most people today do. Yeah, give to God what's God's, and give to Caesar what's Caesars! Sounds reasonable, right? Little did they know that Jesus had challenged the pharisees and won.

 

Jesus' rhetoric was astounding, which is why the passage ends with everyone in amazement at his response. He had simultaneously sidestepped the trap they set for him, while also revealing their hypocrisy AND taking a stance on the issue. Everything belongs to God. You owe Caesar nothing. 

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't pay your taxes. I don't think taxes are necessarily "evil." But people who use that verse to support paying taxes are skirting blasphemy. A Christian should pay his taxes, as long as his taxes aren't going to a corrupt or evil tyrant. It's important that we are informed on where our money actually goes though, and if need be, a Christian should refuse to pay taxes that go against God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've always heard that quote used to encourage believers to invest in separation of church and state. Like, the government does its thing and God does his thing, and they shouldn't necessarily be connected, because government is irrelevant to the religion itself, so long as you practice your beliefs.

 

I do agree Jesus was being rather sly about his wording, so in that context it's pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've only ever heard that quote used in the senses that Necro and Sahaqiel brought up, but never as a sly way of saying that no, one shouldn't pay taxes. I just read the passage myself, and while I see what Chase is getting at, I don't find the same subtext there, and have never seen anyone else promote a similar view. Sure, Jesus was in a tricky situation, but he also had a habit of quoting old testament scripture himself, not leaving that to the memory of whoever is listening/reading. Sure, you could argue the Pharisees would totally know what he was talking about in this roundabout situation Chase proposes, but I don't know how one would prove that. Also, if the entire Jewish population stopped paying taxes to Rome they'd be ruthlessly crushed by the Roman military until they once again gave in, which is exactly what happened when disputes over taxation led to the First Jewish-Roman War from 66-73 AD/CE, which cost anywhere between 250,000 to over a million lives, with tens of thousands of Jews enslaved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War

 

Basically, I'm not convinced and don't think another few paragraphs of speculation will clear that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think this is a thing that depends on your own personal interpretation. Depending on your slant towards the religious or the secular, you'll see it one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's the point. If the secular (the Romans) had understood what he was talking about, they would have been rather upset if Jesus were to say anything bad about Caesar. They interpreted it the exact same way almost everyone today does, because they didn't have context.

 

The religious people would see the obvious diss against the Pharisees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That Jesus delivered a sick diss to the Pharisees isn't going to get any debate from me, it's the idea that Jesus was inciting hopeless open rebellion, which is what not paying taxes to the people who've conquered you absolutely is. I've never once doubted that Chase has done extensive homework and has multiple sources, but the thing is you can find a decently well-written article to defend just about any point of view on the internet. Yes, I haven't done more than skim those articles, but I don't feel any need to dive in any deeper than that because, as the wiki pages clearly shows, there are multiple interpretations on the matter. And there are tons and tons of semantic arguments to be made as to what this means or what that means in whichever context. My personal beliefs about Christianity may be less informed by virtue of not looking up a million articles to back up my beliefs, but I've seen enough televangelists who pick and chose which bible verses they site and are capable of making just about any point they want to make me wary. Beyond the very basics of the faith, life has taught me to take everything I hear and read with a healthy dose of salt.

Edited by Agent Zako (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's fine.

 

You can believe whatever you want. MY point was don't use scripture incorrectly, especially if you don't understand the context.

 

I'm not saying you were, I was just saying it in reference to what Necropolis asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

All I was saying is that there is no incorrect on this. Different people are going to take different things out of it depending on the lens that they see life through

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think this is a good stopping point for me in this thread, unless someone brings up a new topic. Glad we've been able to discuss without things getting too heated or personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.