Is it a sin?

freshpopcorn

I don't want to start a debate on this subject. I'm just wondering is it a sin not to pay your water charges?
I have a lot of respect for religious people, their generally very honest and good people. I know a few people who would be very anti homosexuality/divorce. Their also refusing to pay their water charges. Would this be considered stealing which would be a big sin?

homer911

I was thinking of this in a different context the other day when reading a story about a Christian who refused to conduct gay civil marriages (sorry, lets keep this on track..)

Matthew 22, 15-22 is a great point of reference for this

http://biblehub.com/matthew/22.htm

In short, Christians should pay their water charges. Is it a sin not to? Well if Jesus says we should, and we dont, then it probably is..

pauldla

I've often wondered about that verse. In that story I'd be the guy at the back of the room watching everyone leave and thinking 'So, do I pay my taxes or not?'

Not trying to cause an argument, btw. Just find the story slightly puzzling.

Manach

I'd say it would be a case of rendered unto Caesar what is his. The mismanagement fiasco that is Irish Water is an admin law issue and the only religious aspect is the attempted miracle of squeezing blood from a stone.

pauldla

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it would be a case of rendered unto Caesar what is his. The mismanagement fiasco that is Irish Water is an admin law issue and the only religious aspect is the attempted miracle of squeezing blood from a stone.

So, this does this mean, pay the tax? And would it be a sin if the OP didn't pay the charge?

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

So, this does this mean, pay the tax? And would it be a sin if the OP didn't pay the charge?

As ever, I'd imagine the motivation of the heart as the key issue.

If someone considered the water tax an unjust imposition (for example: a direct consequence of not burning German banks who were culpable for their losses (due to greed-based, unwise lending)) then they could take a stand against that including non-payment. The hearts motivation isn't selfishness.

Although no one likes taxes they might consider this a fair tax but not pay because of the current hullabaloo. The heart's motivation is selfishness.

antiskeptic

homer911 wrote: »

I was thinking of this in a different context the other day when reading a story about a Christian who refused to conduct gay civil marriages (sorry, lets keep this on track..)

Matthew 22, 15-22 is a great point of reference for this

My moneys mine, it's not Caesars. Caesar need make a case whenever he figures what's mine is rightfully his. I'm all for taxes but not for bailing out (rather, not burning) German banks.

WearstheFoxhat

I suppose we'd have to ask would it be a sin to receive electricity and then not pay the bill?

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

I've often wondered about that verse. In that story I'd be the guy at the back of the room watching everyone leave and thinking 'So, do I pay my taxes or not?'

Not trying to cause an argument, btw. Just find the story slightly puzzling.

That's the right reaction, IMO.

The subtext of the "render unto Caesar" story is important. Well, it's not really a subtext, since it's explicit. The Pharisees "plotted how to entangle him in his words". The weren't really interested in whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not; they just picked that as a complex issue that could invoke a variety of moral principles, sometimes in tension with one another, and press him for a one-word answer which, whether it was "yes" or "no", would get him into trouble. He refuses to give the one-word answer, instead offering them a principle ("render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s") which they have to apply themselves, and which won't always be easy to apply.

So, yes, you are correct to recognize that Jesus doesn't give the one-word answer that was demanded. Which is frustrating if you are just looking for someone to tell you what to do, so you don't have to take any responsibility for thinking about what to do. And perhaps one of the lessons here is that it's not always right to look for simplistic, univalent one-word answers to complex ethical situations.

Now skip forward a few verses. Shortly after Jesus has dismissed as "you hypocrites" those who asked him this question, another Pharisee asks him "which is the greatest commandment of all?" We all know the two-fold answer he gets - love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind; love your neighbour as yourself.

The man asking this question gets a much better reception from Jesus; in Mark's version of this story Jesus tells him "You are not far from the kingdom of God". This question doesn't demand a simplistic answer, and the answer doesn't treat morality as a list of prohibitions.

So, apply that to the water charges issue. Do you love your neighbour more in paying the charge, on in withholding it? Are you trying to save money and have water supplied to you at someone else's expense, or are you doing this because you think it will be an effective tactic to press for a more just allocation of scarce natural resources, not merely for yourself but for the community?

Qualitymark

homer911 wrote: »

I was thinking of this in a different context the other day when reading a story about a Christian who refused to conduct gay civil marriages (sorry, lets keep this on track..)

Matthew 22, 15-22 is a great point of reference for this

http://biblehub.com/matthew/22.htm

In short, Christians should pay their water charges. Is it a sin not to? Well if Jesus says we should, and we dont, then it probably is..

But is this Caesar or a company?

Peregrinus

Qualitymark wrote: »

But is this Caesar or a company?

Well, if you want to analyse it in those terms, Caesar says we should pay our debts not just to Caesar, but to whoever we happen to owe money to. Ceasar sets up courts to compel this, and awards judgments, and has sherrifs and bailiffs and the like to enforce them.

If you take the view that Irish Water is not Caesar but "just a company", I don't think that changes the moral calculation very much. Or, if it does, it tilts it in favour of paying. You can mount an argument, I think, that the republic should provide water to its citizens and not charge for it. But if Irish Water is not the republic, it's very hard to argue that they have the obligation to provide you with water and not charge for it. Why would they have such an obligation? And if they have no such obligation, what is the moral case for taking the water they supply, and then refusing to pay for the supply of water?

Qualitymark

Maybe, but it takes Jesus' statement out of the equation. He was talking purely about whether you should pay tax to a government you had no part in.

Peregrinus

Well, I dunno. "A government you had no part in" is a very modern concept, isn't it? Whoever governed Palestine in Jesus' time, it was never going to be a democracy, or be accountable to the people; they were never going to have a "part" in any government they could conceive of.

Qualitymark

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I dunno. "A government you had no part in" is a very modern concept, isn't it? Whoever governed Palestine in Jesus' time, it was never going to be a democracy, or be accountable to the people; they were never going to have a "part" in any government they could conceive of.

But the point the Pharisees were making was "Should you pay taxes to an occupying power - taxes that mainly go to support the empire that oppresses us?"

One of the reasons the publicans (tax-collectors) were so reviled was that they had to collect all the taxes or they'd be required to pay them themselves. If they couldn't pay them, they, and their children in perpetuity, would be enslaved. So they were pretty enthusiastic in their collection methods.

El_Duderino 09

antiskeptic wrote:

If someone considered the water tax an unjust imposition (for example: a direct consequence of not burning German banks who were culpable for their losses (due to greed-based, unwise lending)) then they could take a stand against that including non-payment. The hearts motivation isn't selfishness.

antiskeptic wrote:

As ever, I'd imagine the motivation of the heart as the key issue.

Why didn't Jesus include that part about the motivation of the heart?

antiskeptic wrote:

If someone considered the water tax an unjust imposition (for example: a direct consequence of not burning German banks who were culpable for their losses (due to greed-based, unwise lending)) then they could take a stand against that including non-payment. The hearts motivation isn't selfishness.

Why didn't he say 'have a think about it and if you think it's a just tax, then you should pay it'.

In the bible Jesus is made out to be smart. How can you so easily improve on his statement without changing the message?

Jesus did not say that you should think about it and pay taxes you deem just.

antiskeptic wrote:

Although no one likes taxes they might consider this a fair tax but not pay because of the current hullabaloo. The heart's motivation is selfishness.

Jesus didn't tell you to consider the fairness of the tax.

Terrlock

Has anyone actually read the terms and conditions of the water charges that we sign up too?

Effectively this is making turning the Irish people into slaves to a private organization. It also renders a private organization above the Law.

Spain is using the Gag laws to suppress the nation, Ireland is simply using our most abundant source...water.

Is it a Sin not to stand up for what is Just?

Is it because of the way Irish people have turned their backs on God as a nation that all our freedoms are being eroded.

MrPudding

Terrlock wrote: »

Is it because of the way Irish people have turned their backs on God as a nation that all our freedoms are being eroded.

I think I read somewhere it is because of the gays.

What is the problem with the terms and conditions? Is there something g there that would make withholding payment not a sin?

MrP

Peregrinus

Qualitymark wrote: »

But the point the Pharisees were making was "Should you pay taxes to an occupying power - taxes that mainly go to support the empire that oppresses us?"

That is the point the Pharisees were making, but surely the response of Jesus indicates that it's the wrong point to make?

The Pharisees' point was, perhaps, not so much that the Roman government was one in which the Jews had no part, as that the Roman government was not legitimate. Should we pay taxes to a government with no legitimacy?

Jesus isn't really interested in this. We know from his comments elsewhere ("My kingdom is not of this world") that he really wasn't concerned about political legitimacy; it wasn't an issue that he was hung up about, or that he thought others should be hung up about. So on the question of whether it is right to pay a particular tax or not, the political legitimacy of the government which levies the tax is not a terribly relevant factor, in mainstream Christian ethics.

antiskeptic

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why didn't Jesus include that part about the motivation of the heart?

There was a whole lot he didn't include. He didn't, for example, say how we are to figure out what is Caesars in order to be able to render it unto him.

Jesus didn't tell you to consider the fairness of the tax.

I have visions of El Duderino answering the door to Prinsengracht 263-267 and, on being questioned by the Gestapo regarding the presence or otherwise of Jews in the house, considers Matthew 5:37 in similar straight-down-the-middle fashion.

"Sure thing, top floor, door is behind the bookcase on the right"

Overheal

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I don't want to start a debate on this subject. I'm just wondering is it a sin not to pay your water charges?
I have a lot of respect for religious people, their generally very honest and good people. I know a few people who would be very anti homosexuality/divorce. Their also refusing to pay their water charges. Would this be considered stealing which would be a big sin?

<snip> whether it's a sin or not: not paying debts you entered into is not something I would sleep well with.

Now, whether that applies in this case, as it was thrust upon you...