Global Capitalism

[Immanuel Can]

So if I don't read the Bible and don't want to go to Hell,

Really, Gary, you should go back and read what I wrote. Your paraphrase is once again, wrong.

will God "force" me to go to Hell regardless of my not wanting to go to Hell?

Will the cliff kill you if you decide to drive over it? Will your death then be the cliff's fault?

So if someone doesn't pay taxes and they were required to, then it would be their fault for not paying them. Is that correct?

Stop paraphrasing, Gary. You aren't any good at it, obviously.

But I'll answer, even though it's off point. If a government tells people to pay taxes, and promises jail, that does not mean that the taxes become legit or fair. All it means is that the government (whether government or taxes are good or evil -- that's another question) is going to impose certain consequences, known to the taxpayer beforehand, if the tax payer refuses.

Now, you can like that the government can do that, or you can hate it. Personally, I hate it. I think the government takes too many taxes. But I'll be well aware in advance what the consequences for refusal are. And I freely get to choose whether I'm willing to face those consquences or pay my taxes.

But what one can't say is, "I didn't know," and "I didn't choose to accept the consequences of refusing."

However, consequences of rejecting God are not like taxes. Taxes are arbitrary. They could be other than they are, and they are imposed at the whim of the governing power. But the consequence of rejecting the Source of all goodness, life, health, light, joy and peace...are all the opposites, obviously, and can be nothing else, logically, automatically, naturally.

And having been warned, most people still choose the wrong thing. What can be said about such an attitude? Certainly they are not experiencing "force," far less the kind of level of force of which the Supreme Being would be capable of.

[Immanuel Can]

So if the popular vote was to fund social programs through a progressive tax program (the more a person makes the more they would pay, however, not without being able to keep some of their extra income--with the poorest possibly not having to pay taxes at all) would it be OK to you to have social programs, even though a lesser portion of citizens didn't want to pay their share of those taxes?

Relevance? Not seeing it.

Answer the question and maybe the "relevance" will become apparent.

I don't think it will, and I'm loath to chase red herrings.

[Gary Childress]

However, consequences of rejecting God are not like taxes. Taxes are arbitrary. They could be other than they are, and they are imposed at the whim of the governing power. But the consequence of rejecting the Source of all goodness, life, health, light, joy and peace...are all the opposites, obviously, and can be nothing else, logically, automatically, naturally.

And having been warned, most people still choose the wrong thing. What can be said about such an attitude? Certainly they are not experiencing "force," far less the kind of level of force of which the Supreme Being would be capable of.

Thank you for your answer. Are taxes "arbitrary" because they could be other than they are. Or are they "arbitrary" because they are not issued by God?

In other words, if something could be shown to possibly have been other than it is (things could be different) would that make it "arbitrary" or is it the case that anything and everything demanded by God is by necessity not "arbitrary" even if it could be different?

[Iwannaplato]

However, consequences of rejecting God are not like taxes. Taxes are arbitrary. They could be other than they are, and they are imposed at the whim of the governing power. But the consequence of rejecting the Source of all goodness, life, health, light, joy and peace...are all the opposites, obviously, and can be nothing else, logically, automatically, naturally.

And having been warned, most people still choose the wrong thing. What can be said about such an attitude? Certainly they are not experiencing "force," far less the kind of level of force of which the Supreme Being would be capable of.

Thank you for your answer. Are taxes "arbitrary" because they could be other than they are. Or are they "arbitrary" because they are not issued by God?

In other words, if something could be shown to possibly have been other than it is (things could be different) would that make it "arbitrary" or is it the case that anything and everything demanded by God is by necessity not "arbitrary" even if it could be different?

An omnipotent deity cannot excuse itself by saying this isn't arbitrary, it is the only way it could go.
But aside from that, it is as if one needs to give people a finite time, in a confusing existence, with urges that are taboo, competing images and stories about God, and so in those 85 years or less, you don't cross whatever threshold it is for goodness and the other categories (because we are not binarily good or bad), then you are tortured forever. LOL. Imagine an omnipotent deity saying 'I have to torture them for eternity, because to do otherwise would violate logic? - You'r truly, your loving Father.

These people are like apologists for an earthly tyrant.

[Immanuel Can]

However, consequences of rejecting God are not like taxes. Taxes are arbitrary. They could be other than they are, and they are imposed at the whim of the governing power. But the consequence of rejecting the Source of all goodness, life, health, light, joy and peace...are all the opposites, obviously, and can be nothing else, logically, automatically, naturally.

And having been warned, most people still choose the wrong thing. What can be said about such an attitude? Certainly they are not experiencing "force," far less the kind of level of force of which the Supreme Being would be capable of.

Thank you for your answer. Are taxes "arbitrary" because they could be other than they are. Or are they "arbitrary" because they are not issued by God?

You'll have to show me where God issues taxes. I'm unfamiliar with that. I think the IRS is,too...though they sometimes play god, maybe.

[Gary Childress]

However, consequences of rejecting God are not like taxes. Taxes are arbitrary. They could be other than they are, and they are imposed at the whim of the governing power. But the consequence of rejecting the Source of all goodness, life, health, light, joy and peace...are all the opposites, obviously, and can be nothing else, logically, automatically, naturally.

And having been warned, most people still choose the wrong thing. What can be said about such an attitude? Certainly they are not experiencing "force," far less the kind of level of force of which the Supreme Being would be capable of.

Thank you for your answer. Are taxes "arbitrary" because they could be other than they are. Or are they "arbitrary" because they are not issued by God?

You'll have to show me where God issues taxes. I'm unfamiliar with that. I think the IRS is,too...though they sometimes play god, maybe.

I don't know. To me the practice of attending church or reading the Bible seems "taxing". So maybe we can agree to disagree on whether God issues "taxes".

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you for your answer. Are taxes "arbitrary" because they could be other than they are. Or are they "arbitrary" because they are not issued by God?

You'll have to show me where God issues taxes. I'm unfamiliar with that. I think the IRS is,too...though they sometimes play god, maybe.

I don't know. To me the practice of attending church or reading the Bible seems "taxing". So maybe we can agree to disagree on whether God issues "taxes".

I think you've lost the whole subject thread now, and even the thread of the present discussion, as well. This is why I don't like to bother with red herrings.

[Gary Childress]

You'll have to show me where God issues taxes. I'm unfamiliar with that. I think the IRS is,too...though they sometimes play god, maybe.

I don't know. To me the practice of attending church or reading the Bible seems "taxing". So maybe we can agree to disagree on whether God issues "taxes".

I think you've lost the whole subject thread now, and even the thread of the present discussion, as well. This is why I don't like to bother with red herrings.

I believe the issue of taxes came up discussing whether or not socialism and the taxes required to run it are the root of all evil or not (or something like that). You give your answer, and when others start to examine your position, questioning it, then as usual you don't seem to like it and complain that we are "off topic" or that it is "irrelevant" to question your answers. At least that's my perception.

[Immanuel Can]

However, consequences of rejecting God are not like taxes. Taxes are arbitrary. They could be other than they are, and they are imposed at the whim of the governing power. But the consequence of rejecting the Source of all goodness, life, health, light, joy and peace...are all the opposites, obviously, and can be nothing else, logically, automatically, naturally.

And having been warned, most people still choose the wrong thing. What can be said about such an attitude? Certainly they are not experiencing "force," far less the kind of level of force of which the Supreme Being would be capable of.

Thank you for your answer. Are taxes "arbitrary" because they could be other than they are. Or are they "arbitrary" because they are not issued by God?

In other words, if something could be shown to possibly have been other than it is (things could be different) would that make it "arbitrary" or is it the case that anything and everything demanded by God is by necessity not "arbitrary" even if it could be different?

An omnipotent deity cannot excuse itself by saying this isn't arbitrary, it is the only way it could go.

I don't think you've maybe figured out what "omnipotent" implies. Nowhere does it imply, "Can do mutually-contradictory things." In fact, only a truly omnipotent Being would never find it necessary to do anything incoherent with His own character, or irrational.

If you think omnipotence comes without constraints, then your use of the word "omnipotent" doesn't apply to God. God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot do things inharmonious with His own nature. God cannot break His promises. All these things are already stipulated in the Bible. So the Christian claim that God is "omnipotent" does not include what you suppose. It doesn't mean "capable of self-contradictory or absurd acts." (This is one of the weaknesses of theologians who choose descriptors not included in the Bible itself, of which "omnipotent" is one; they would need to define precisely what they mean by employing it, justifying it in Biblical terms, or it could be misleading to the less-informed public.)

Here's a self-contradiction, for example. If God were to give human beings "will," but then deny them any power to use it. Then, in what sense would He have given them "will" at all? It doesn't make sense. Here's another one: "I will give you choice, but you can only choose one thing." That would be absurd, because then there's no "choice."

From a purely analytic perspective, then -- from the very meaning of the concepts themselves -- if God gives you a "choice" to accept or reject Him, He cannot afterward prevent you from rejecting. If He did, then by definition, He gave you no choice. And if that choice comes with natural and automatic consequences, then freedom of will entails that you have the right to choose and experience both rejection and the consequences.

It's all very logical, actually. And it devolves automatically upon human freedom to choose.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know. To me the practice of attending church or reading the Bible seems "taxing". So maybe we can agree to disagree on whether God issues "taxes".

I think you've lost the whole subject thread now, and even the thread of the present discussion, as well. This is why I don't like to bother with red herrings.

I believe the issue of taxes came up...

It didn't "come up." You decided to use it as some kind of analogy, actually...though it wasn't a very good one, obviously. God has no taxes, and taxes are arbitrary constructs of government.

We were discussing the word "force," if I recall. And I think you thought talk of "taxes" would somehow illuminate something. Then you lost your own point, apparently, because it seems it didn't illuminate anything.

[Gary Childress]

Thank you for your answer. Are taxes "arbitrary" because they could be other than they are. Or are they "arbitrary" because they are not issued by God?

In other words, if something could be shown to possibly have been other than it is (things could be different) would that make it "arbitrary" or is it the case that anything and everything demanded by God is by necessity not "arbitrary" even if it could be different?

An omnipotent deity cannot excuse itself by saying this isn't arbitrary, it is the only way it could go.

I don't think you've maybe figured out what "omnipotent" implies. Nowhere does it imply, "Can do mutually-contradictory things." In fact, only a truly omnipotent Being would never find it necessary to do anything incoherent with His own character, or irrational.

If you think omnipotence comes without constraints, then your use of the word "omnipotent" doesn't apply to God. God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot do things inharmonious with His own nature. God cannot break His promises. All these things are already stipulated in the Bible. So the Christian claim that God is "omnipotent" does not include what you suppose. It doesn't mean "capable of self-contradictory or absurd acts." (This is one of the weaknesses of theologians who choose descriptors not included in the Bible itself, of which "omnipotent" is one; they would need to define precisely what they mean by employing it, justifying it in Biblical terms, or it could be misleading to the less-informed public.)

Here's a self-contradiction, for example. If God were to give human beings "will," but then deny them any power to use it. Then, in what sense would He have given them "will" at all? It doesn't make sense. Here's another one: "I will give you choice, but you can only choose one thing." That would be absurd, because then there's no "choice."

From a purely analytic perspective, then -- from the very meaning of the concepts themselves -- if God gives you a "choice" to accept or reject Him, He cannot afterward prevent you from rejecting. If He did, then by definition, He gave you no choice. And if that choice comes with natural and automatic consequences, then freedom of will entails that you have the right to choose and experience both rejection and the consequences.

It's all very logical, actually. And it devolves automatically upon human freedom to choose.

Doesn't the same apply to taxes? If taxes are necessary to run necessary programs, then they aren't "arbitrary". However, if taxes were used in ways that aren't necessary, then they are arbitrary.

[Gary Childress]

I think you've lost the whole subject thread now, and even the thread of the present discussion, as well. This is why I don't like to bother with red herrings.

I believe the issue of taxes came up...

It didn't "come up." You decided to use it as some kind of analogy, actually...though it wasn't a very good one, obviously. God has no taxes, and taxes are arbitrary constructs of government.

We were discussing the word "force," if I recall. And I think you thought talk of "taxes" would somehow illuminate something. Then you lost your own point, apparently, because it seems it didn't illuminate anything.

It came up because "socialism" requires taxes in order to function and you seem to think that such taxes are "theft" or immoral. Or do you not think that all forms of taxation and reasons for it are necessarily immoral?

[Immanuel Can]

An omnipotent deity cannot excuse itself by saying this isn't arbitrary, it is the only way it could go.

I don't think you've maybe figured out what "omnipotent" implies. Nowhere does it imply, "Can do mutually-contradictory things." In fact, only a truly omnipotent Being would never find it necessary to do anything incoherent with His own character, or irrational.

If you think omnipotence comes without constraints, then your use of the word "omnipotent" doesn't apply to God. God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot do things inharmonious with His own nature. God cannot break His promises. All these things are already stipulated in the Bible. So the Christian claim that God is "omnipotent" does not include what you suppose. It doesn't mean "capable of self-contradictory or absurd acts." (This is one of the weaknesses of theologians who choose descriptors not included in the Bible itself, of which "omnipotent" is one; they would need to define precisely what they mean by employing it, justifying it in Biblical terms, or it could be misleading to the less-informed public.)

Here's a self-contradiction, for example. If God were to give human beings "will," but then deny them any power to use it. Then, in what sense would He have given them "will" at all? It doesn't make sense. Here's another one: "I will give you choice, but you can only choose one thing." That would be absurd, because then there's no "choice."

From a purely analytic perspective, then -- from the very meaning of the concepts themselves -- if God gives you a "choice" to accept or reject Him, He cannot afterward prevent you from rejecting. If He did, then by definition, He gave you no choice. And if that choice comes with natural and automatic consequences, then freedom of will entails that you have the right to choose and experience both rejection and the consequences.

It's all very logical, actually. And it devolves automatically upon human freedom to choose.

Doesn't the same apply to taxes?

No, for the reasons I've already pointed out. Taxes are arbitrary constructs of government, not natural laws or logical principles. The "consequences" of refusing to pay them are artificial, not automatic or rational. They could be otherwise. In fact, they could not exist at all.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe the issue of taxes came up...

It didn't "come up." You decided to use it as some kind of analogy, actually...though it wasn't a very good one, obviously. God has no taxes, and taxes are arbitrary constructs of government.

We were discussing the word "force," if I recall. And I think you thought talk of "taxes" would somehow illuminate something. Then you lost your own point, apparently, because it seems it didn't illuminate anything.

It came up because "socialism" requires taxes

Well, Socialism "requires" many things to which it is not entitled.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think you've maybe figured out what "omnipotent" implies. Nowhere does it imply, "Can do mutually-contradictory things." In fact, only a truly omnipotent Being would never find it necessary to do anything incoherent with His own character, or irrational.

If you think omnipotence comes without constraints, then your use of the word "omnipotent" doesn't apply to God. God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot do things inharmonious with His own nature. God cannot break His promises. All these things are already stipulated in the Bible. So the Christian claim that God is "omnipotent" does not include what you suppose. It doesn't mean "capable of self-contradictory or absurd acts." (This is one of the weaknesses of theologians who choose descriptors not included in the Bible itself, of which "omnipotent" is one; they would need to define precisely what they mean by employing it, justifying it in Biblical terms, or it could be misleading to the less-informed public.)

Here's a self-contradiction, for example. If God were to give human beings "will," but then deny them any power to use it. Then, in what sense would He have given them "will" at all? It doesn't make sense. Here's another one: "I will give you choice, but you can only choose one thing." That would be absurd, because then there's no "choice."

From a purely analytic perspective, then -- from the very meaning of the concepts themselves -- if God gives you a "choice" to accept or reject Him, He cannot afterward prevent you from rejecting. If He did, then by definition, He gave you no choice. And if that choice comes with natural and automatic consequences, then freedom of will entails that you have the right to choose and experience both rejection and the consequences.

It's all very logical, actually. And it devolves automatically upon human freedom to choose.

Doesn't the same apply to taxes?

No, for the reasons I've already pointed out. Taxes are arbitrary constructs of government, not natural laws or logical principles. The "consequences" of refusing to pay them are artificial, not automatic or rational. They could be otherwise. In fact, they could not exist at all.

So it's not "automatic" that government would fail without taxes and it's not "rational" to have taxes in order to keep government from failing? We can just not pay taxes and still have highways and roads and social services?