Did you accept jesus in your heart already?

This is the most based picture of Jesus in the world

It's all about power.

I would be a huge hypocrite if I said that as a Muslim.
Atheist.
Very much so user.
The world's a huge power play, I'm so sick of it all.
The rat is happier than us, humans are not meant to run rat races for their entire lives.
What'd you think the future will be like, user?

Attached: ratto.png (498x392, 86.42K)

Oh nvm then. I only asked because it seems that you misconstrue Christianity as not doing anything to improve your lot in life.

literally 14 years old thought

Care to prove your point?
Am I wrong? Does the Bible not actively preach against worldly goods(biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-greed/), supports authority over morality, (biblehub.com/mark/12-17.htm)
and subservience above all costs, to the point that kids should be killed for laughing at an old man? (2 Kings 2, I'm sure you know the Elijah story)

> preach against worldly goods
The emphasis is that you should prioritize God before material wealth, not so much that money is evil in itself
>supports authority over morality
The verse you picked did no say that authority is greater than morality. We ought to respect authority yes, but the verse you specifically picked out has a much greater meaning (keep in mind that the question asked is whether to pay taxes or not). "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Focus on the last part of the verse. What do you think that means?
>to the point that kids should be killed for laughing at an old man
Not really, God is passing judgment on the kids. Doesn't imply that you should outright kill all mockers of God

>Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's
I'll give you Imago Dei as a hint

Attached: 38951735.jpg (936x853, 770.44K)

>Prioritize God before money, not that money is evil in itself

It would be nice to believe that that dichotomy is possible, but as the Bible has also said in Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money"

And if you put it into the overarching context, you realise that many parts of the Bible has an explicit call-to-action for believers to live humbly and not strive to get richer in any way at all.

I think this is best exemplified through the life of Christ himself. It's almost as if there is a fetishization of suffering throughout the entire Bible, like in the entire Book of Job, why on Earth does the all benevolent God cause a righteous man to suffer endlessly?

That is my main quip with the Bible, it's posits unnecessary suffering for the sake of suffering when man would do much better working for himself.

>Nowhere does it say that authority is greater than morality

Indeed, the verse itself seems to be a simple comment on equality, but there's greater historical context here. As in, the very reason why Jesus was asked that question in the first place.At the time of this verse, the Jews were revolting and avoiding taxes because they were treated unfairly and oppressed by the Romans.The Pharisees, viewing him as a Populist,expected to entrap him into saying the popular thing, to stand up and fight against unjust.
Instead, he pretty unambiguously told people to stand down and hand over control.

Of course this is through the interpretation of a modern lens,but once again, it seems to be like the Bible is telling you to bend over to authority and not do better.

>It would be nice to believe that that dichotomy is possible, but as the Bible has also said in Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money"
You have to try really hard to interpret those verses to mean to live as a beggar. Ecclesiastes 8:14 tells us to enjoy life. Jacob was balling and so was Joseph, yet they were faithful people. There are tons of wealthy servants of God who were in positions of kingship no less.
> to live humbly
yes
>not strive to get richer in any way at all.
no
>it's posits unnecessary suffering for the sake of suffering
The Bible never says this. If you are struggling with theodicy, watch this. There's a lot of text on this but I don't know how much time you want to commit to studying this.
>youtube.com/watch?v=wtx5GyP7i7w
>the verse itself seems to be a simple comment on equality
No it's not. What do you think "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" means? What does it mean to render to God the things that are God's?

Anybody who serves money is retarded
Money is an object, it had to serve you
If you allow yourself to become an animal and worship money, you're stupid
you don't even need to believe in God for this, everybody who does this can become rich or whatever, but they become also complete pieces of shit

That is no longer a possibility in our modern day consumerist society. At least it isn't in mine. The only way to do that would be to live outside the confines of society.
I'll give that video a watch, it's not that long, thanks for the link.
And I know that there were rich people in the Bible, David & Solomon's the one story that's been drilled into our heads in Sunday school. I guess I was wrong to say that wealth is condemned, thinking about it now.

But my main point was that suffering is promoted and that irks me a lot. But I'll watch the video now, maybe it'll show me something new.

The phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" is a deliberate cop-out, once again, by equating the two sides to be equal.
What does it mean?
As I said, if you look at historical context, the Jews had to chose between the Earthly authority (Ceasar) or the Moral authority (God).
Jesus did not address the issue of things that pertained to both spheres(which is what the tax resistance was about in the first place).
You see, in addition to the oppression at the time, the Caesar at the time, Tiberius Caesar, was a pedophile, a murderer and slave-taker, so the Jews had issues with paying taxes to such a man, as it directly contradicted their faith.
So I view what Jesus did as an easy cop-out to the actual issue by equating both spheres and separating them entirely, as if there were no overlaps between God and Caesar

Yes. Fellow citizens of heaven.

>That is no longer a possibility in our modern day consumerist society.
You don't need to serve money to live.

>But my main point was that suffering is promoted
promoted is probably the wrong word. Remember Romans 5:3? Suffering for no reason is obviously not a good thing, but suffering to grow your soul? That's a different story. This is not too different than your Stoic philosophers like Seneca. And like Craig mentioned, suffering is often times a mechanism for unbelievers to come to Christ.
>the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" is a deliberate cop-out, once again, by equating the two sides to be equal.
The coin has Ceasar's image on it. If you are Christian, then you would believe that God's image is on you. If that is the case, everything that you do is owed unto God, not Caesar.

So Jesus's answer implies that morality actually supersedes worldly authority

I'm pretty sure that New Testament view is wealth is bad

You definitely need money to live.What government welfare covers is food and water. It does not cover the laptop you need to buy for your job. It does not cover the mobile phone you need to have to apply to the job, to get into the work-place chat group. It does not cover mandatory office nights out with your boss.
And it most certainly does not cover the parental maintenance which you are legally obliged to pay, even if you're broke.
I've watched the video, and I still don't buy into the idea that God allows suffering so that the soul can grow.

If a 9 year old dies of AIDS/in a warzone/parental neglect, what growth is there for the child?

If you see the story in the news, sure you might reflect on what happened and be more humble, but once again, what growth is there for the child?

Why does God allow some people to suffer and some people to thrive, even if they're total pieces of shit?

The preacher claims that God is not impersonal, whilst also simultaneously claiming that God is min-maxxing his strategy to allow as many people into the Kingdom of God as possible.

This does not answer the question of WHY these people had to suffer. Why them in particular?

These people will not gain anything, since they are dead, and they've probably been sent to hell since they've never even heard of Jesus.

I believe this is a mere rehash of the Just-World theory, and does not actually address anything.

>If you are Christian you would believe that God's image is onto you. If that is the case, everything you do is owed onto God, not Caesar.
...then why did he not endorse that? To most people, if you take out a coin and see a figure on it you'll say that the figure's head is on the coin, because it is.
Not some metaphorical transposition of God's image. That's extremely convoluted. Who on Earth is supposed to know that just by looking at a coin? Do you see God in everything that you do all the time?

> That's extremely convoluted. Who on Earth is supposed to know that just by looking at a coin?
Imago Dei was a common knowledge for the Jews at the time (Genesis 1:27). You seem genuinely interested into Christianity. There's a lot of theology to study that's difficult to discuss through a mongolian basket weaving image board dedicated to sharing international cultures. But whenever's there's verses that you have difficulty with, it is always helpful to consult commentary on said exegesis.
>I've watched the video, and I still don't buy into the idea that God allows suffering so that the soul can grow.
Do you recognize the difference between the intellectual and emotional problem of evil?
>what growth is there for the child?
The child suffering can learn to overcome hardships further along the way. It is also just an unfortunate circumstance of having irresponsible parents.
>Why does God allow some people to suffer and some people to thrive, even if they're total pieces of shit?
The free-will defense come to mind.
>This does not answer the question of WHY these people had to suffer. Why them in particular?
It's hard to pinpoint a case. Sometimes its punishment, bad luck, or from the sin of others. But look at it from a Christian perspective, in which heaven (eternal life) is possible. Then the suffering you experience in the 100 years or so you have on this Earth is minuscule compared to the infinite heaven. It's about the timescales.
> they've probably been sent to hell since they've never even heard of Jesus.
There's many theology that tries to address this like universalism and what not. But I'm not entirely equipped to delve into theology right now, but there are sources out there for you study if you wish.

No i dont like jews

>mises.org/wire/render-unto-caesar-most-misunderstood-new-testament-passage
Here's a commentary I found

got a chuckle out of me, thanks user

>like they do
the rich will burn in hell, every single one of them. anyone with over 10 million dollars is damned.

yes. western Christians like our Canadian friend will try to argue against that, ofc

Wealth isn't bad in and of itself. With more wealth you can donate more to charity and what else.

>If a 9 year old dies of AIDS/in a warzone/parental neglect, what growth is there for the child?
there is none. that child was robbed of his life, maybe even his chance in heaven, by others. and those others must repent or burn in hell. God desparately wants us in heaven, but He respects our free will, and if we willfully doom a child, then it's on our shoulders, not His