Subject:
|
Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:54:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1414 times
|
| |
|
|
Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote in message ...
>
> John DiRienzo <ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote
> > Moz wrote:
> > > No. Theft is at the core of Christian beliefs.
> > Now, tell me the difference between tithing and taxing.
>
> There is no difference *in princliple*, provided that membership is • voluntary.
> This situation has only recently arisen for both countries and churches. • However,
> the difference is that taxation can be seen as payment for services • rendered in
> the physical world, while tithing is typically only justified by reference • to
> metaphysics. In practice some people (me, at least) who tithe do so because • of
> what happens to the tithe (it is used for charitable works and other • necessary
> tasks). Although little of my tenth actually goes to a church beaurocracy, • I
> have to admit.
I agree with you, that whether you are giving money voluntarily to a
church or involuntarily to a government, your money is going into a
bureaucracy, and some of it will just disappear. Still, I think the general
idea is about the same (except only one is forced these days). My
difference of opinion with you is that part about services rendered. Very
few of the services being rendered are helping me (the person giving up the
money for so called services) in any way. In fact, I would prefer to give
that money to most any church than to the government (had I that option) so
that I could see that money being used for a reasonable (to me) purpose.
> > And, now, doesn't the government regulate interest rates?
>
> Maybe in the USA, but not in New Zealand. The government decides what rate • it
> will pay for the bonds it issues, and from time to time the governer of the
> reserve bank rants at the other banks about their interest rates, but there
> is no direct regulation, and the threat is not IMO especially powerful • because
> they all seem to agree on their analysis of what will happen if they're • naughty.
>
> > It does in my country.
>
> Are you sure?
Yes.
> > Isn't being taxed to take care of your society the same as being your
> > brothers' keeper?
>
> Yes. I have explained why I think this is a good thing. Please distinguish
> between my objections to the holes in other people's positions and the
> things that I advocate as my position.
So, you think its a good thing, and I do, too, to an extent, but in my
country (and I admit ignorance about yours) it has been taken way too far.
> > And, from another post of yours, name a country which at one time or
> > another hasn't disallowed genocide, in some form?
>
> Australia. They have refused to sign the relevant treaty because they at
> least admit to the mechanism they used to found their country. Not that
> I'm singling out the USA on this one, there are numerous other countries
> in the same boat. "Genocide is bad, very bad. But only if it happened
> after <the date we founded our country>". Although if by "disallowed"
> you mean removal of genocide as a formal policy Australia has managed that
> bit.
I am not sure if you understood what I said. I meant, name a country
that has not persecuted its own minorities. The ruling government did allow
persecution, and did support genocide - I think most, if not all countries
have condoned it at one time or another, not just the US or Australia.
> Moz
>
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
