As for attributing Christianity to my politics, let me ask this then: for the conservatives, where in the Bible does it say that Christians ought to use the government to legislate morality? To the liberals, where in the Bible does it say that Caesar shall help the poor? I'm waiting. What has been the result when government has been to used to "further the aims" of Christianity. The separation of church and state is not an Old Testament doctrine. God separated Abraham from his own people to make of him a great nation (Genesis 12:2). As a nation, God gave His people laws concerning the restraining of evil and the punishment of the evildoer. He placed a sword in their hand and commanded them to use it in bringing judgment upon other ungodly nations (Deuteronomy 20:17). Israel's civil law demanded life for life, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth (Deuteronomy 19:21). God also charged Israel with a spiritual ministry. He worked through them to reconcile other peoples to Himself. In this sense, the Jewish nation embodied both the responsibility of an earthly kingdom and the responsibility of the heavenly kingdom.

In the change of covenants the role of church and state have been separated. No longer is it the responsibility of God's people to wield God's sword of vengeance against His enemies. No longer is it the responsibility of the state to be the standard bearer of truth. There are now two entities with diverse goals and interests. Failure to see this difference between the two covenants leads to confusion and misapplication of this vital New Testament doctrine. The result is indeed bloody and sad.

As for us, we live in the United States. We don't have a Caesar. We kicked the King out. These certain legislators, judges, presidents, as they are called took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If they enact what is referred to as legislation that violates the Constitution, then we as those citizens are under no obligation to obey it. They are the ones who broke the highest law in the land. As Christians especially, we are under no obligation to obey these civil "authorities" if they do something that goes against the wishes of God. Many a sad incident in Germany that Christians confusing the meaning of render unto Caesar, not only went alone with what Hitler did, but actively participated in his crimes.

But of course, since this certain constitution had only been signed by a few dozen invdividuals over 200 hundred years ago, it wouldn't apply to us. These so-called legislators would be inclined to agree thus their incessant infringement on our natural rights, natural law and natural reason. Simply put, I chose not to become part of their vile game.

But as is, while we may be Christians, we can make our own decisions. There are republican Christians, democrat Christians, libertarian Christians, and even apolitical Christians. We each have our reasons for adopting a certain political view and I think that is good. It shows we aren't merely lemmings following their kind into the sea. The history by and large shows this hasn't always been the case.

As for attributing Christianity to my politics, let me ask this then: for the conservatives, where in the Bible does it say that Christians ought to use the government to legislate morality?

That's the stance YOU have REPEATEDLY taken and exactly what I have been arguing against. Reversal is a trick you have repeatedly employed whether you post as Two Bit Hack, Run N Gun, CQB, or whatever other identity you feel like making up for yourself at the moment.

Remember all the multiple threads you started about how the State of Alabama should recognize a higher authority? That is you wishing to legislate your morality. So for this post, you've been caught in a lie.

To the liberals, where in the Bible does it say that Caesar shall help the poor? I'm waiting.

That's YOUR assertion, your lie. Since you do it so often, we'll just call lie #1.1 rather than another separate lie because it ties in with your previous missive. My belief if that Christians should have no qualm contributing to government programs out of compassion for their fellow man for the good of the whole. What better way is there to show love?

The separation of church and state is not an Old Testament doctrine.

Wow! That's news, really. Especially since that has never come up in this discussion previously, so we'll attribute that statement as a deflection and call it a truthful, unrelated statement introduced for the purpose of supporting your previous lie. The further biblical quotes reinforce this statement, not surprising since the Nation of Isreal mentioned in the Bible based it's whole government on the edicts of the Torah (the Old Testament).

In the change of covenants the role of church and state have been separated...edit for space... The result is indeed bloody and sad.

That paragraph is so cogently written, I accuse you of plagiarizing it. Its style and syntax don't match your own. Besides, no matter how well written, it's only a further deflection from the stance that you are obviously now backpeddling away from. By your demonstrated logic, I could post the Illiad and it would have equal relavance.

As Christians especially, we are under no obligation to obey these civil "authorities" if they do something that goes against the wishes of God.

And you've obviously got some higher connection to Him than everyone else that you can pick and choose exactly which laws are "against God" and therefore invalid concerning you. If you don't like the laws of this land, leave it or change the laws. If you break them, you have done so willingly and should be accountable for your actions.

But of course, since this certain constitution had only been signed by a few dozen invdividuals over 200 hundred years ago, it wouldn't apply to us.

You're conveniently forgetting that it was ratified by the individual state legislatures, which was the endorsement of the People. It all boils down to that fact that you think you can get out of paying taxes on what you perceive as legal loophole, that in reality, does not exist. That's the genesis of your whole rant; you're greedy.

These so-called legislators would be inclined to agree thus their incessant infringement on our natural rights, natural law and natural reason. Simply put, I chose not to become part of their vile game.

OK, that makes NO sense and is more typical of your writing style. One minute, you're trying to use your religion to justify your greed, the next you're trying to use "natural rights, natural law and natural reason." Make up your mind as to which belief you're slandering.

But as is, while we may be Christians, we can make our own decisions.

So Christians aren't free to make their own decisions, but we do so anyway? I'm glad I don't adhere to whatever warped belief that comes from. God gives EVERYONE, not just Christians, the ability to choose to do whatever. The difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians are supposed to put the work of God above their own personal gain. Not paying taxes to keep "your money" is not that practice.

You're providing fuel to readers here who view Christianity as nothing short of a huxterish tax dodge or political ploy and are reflecting very badly on a belief that is supposed to exemplify compassion. You're a fraud. Stop using God as an excuse for you own greed.

According to Merriam-Webster Online,

the act, process, or power of coercing

in which coercing means

1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat

synonym see FORCE

Love on the other hand is among other things:

1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests b : an assurance of love

Californians for Moral Government

As for taxes, all I can say is if you are a taxpayer as defined, then pay. But if you are not a taxpayer as defined, then it simply doesn't apply. FN3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer. (Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585 (1972)

Don't bring up that crap about the 16th amendment either. The court has already settled this issue.

"...by the previous ruling [Brushaber v Baltic Mining Co.] it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning [of our national government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income, which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax." - Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580