What like fisticuffs?
Advertisement
by Nea Byzantia » Tue May 14, 2019 9:50 am
by Nea Byzantia » Tue May 14, 2019 9:50 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue May 14, 2019 9:51 am
by Thermodolia » Tue May 14, 2019 9:51 am
by Conserative Morality » Tue May 14, 2019 9:52 am
Galloism wrote:It's really best understood in terms of governmental hierarchy.
You're ordered by the state of California to take a certain action. If the feds are silent to the issue, you must comply. But if there's a United States law that says you can't take that action, then you must comply with federal law - the higher authority.
Similarly, if the Roman government tells you to take a certain action, and God is silent about it, you must comply. If that would violate an order from God, then you must comply with God - the higher authority.
It's really quite simple.
This is not unlike the military command to follow orders generally, unless those orders are in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress, which is a higher authority than your commanding officer.
First one doesn't seem to talk about it being considered a religious devotion at all. Second one gives me an error message. In french.
Tracing it back through the site lands me on a very long article. I'm about halfway down and it hasn't mentioned religious devotion of tax paying at all. Can you tell me where to focus?
[11] Part of what made this system of taxation so complex was that it varied significantly from province to province and over time. In a consideration of the religious responsibilities inherent in Jesus' statement and taxation more generally it is useful to consider the situation in the region of Judea. Thanks to the writings of the New Testament and to the historian Josephus we are relatively well informed about Judea in the first century CE. If the first part of Jesus' statement "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's" was primarily a statement of the political responsibilities of taxation then "Render to God what is God's" can be read as a statement of religious responsibility. There are, of course, many valences to this simple expression, including more abstract responsibilities of religious duty to God in one's actions. However, for the purpose of taxation, I want to focus on the more concrete meanings of this seemingly simple statement. All of Roman taxation was linked in part to religious obligation. In a world in which the favor of the gods was seen as essential to the success of Rome, much of religious life was closely linked to the state. It is no surprise, then, that tax revenues helped to support a range of temples and festivals. Indeed, a fitting expression of this religious connection is offered by the central location in Rome of the Temple of Saturn where the tax revenues were kept.
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue May 14, 2019 9:52 am
by Conserative Morality » Tue May 14, 2019 9:53 am
by Nea Byzantia » Tue May 14, 2019 9:53 am
by LiberNovusAmericae » Tue May 14, 2019 9:53 am
by Nea Byzantia » Tue May 14, 2019 9:53 am
by Conserative Morality » Tue May 14, 2019 9:54 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue May 14, 2019 9:54 am
by Thermodolia » Tue May 14, 2019 9:54 am
Nea Byzantia wrote:Where's the new thread?
by Nea Byzantia » Tue May 14, 2019 9:55 am
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Australian rePublic, Big Eyed Animation, Dimetrodon Empire, Ethel mermania, Google [Bot], Hidrandia, Ifreann, Plan Neonie, Risottia, Shearoa, Soy Soy, Statesburg, Torrocca, Tricorniolis, Tungstan