'Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's', a recipe for revolution?

That makes you a dreamer then! have a look at the buildings in America and you will see the romans have a very large influence over that land and all lands. The Romans? the mind set they put in place.
This great article will give you a great idea.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Yazidi

originally posted by: Yazidi
I don't have to give Caesar anything, I am American.

But you have to pay taxes. Which is exactly the point of Jesus saying "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" . Nothing revolutionary here. Just you owe what you owe.

You only owe what you bought in to in the beggining and you are free to do your best to let go of that. That implies many levels not just money! So it is revolutionary for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.a reply to: Gothmog

originally posted by: ancientthunder
You only owe what you bought in to in the beggining and you are free to do your best to let go of that. That implies many levels not just money! So it is revolutionary for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.a reply to: Gothmog

But , it was the law of the time.Just like it is today.

a reply to: Profusion

My goodness what a contorted mess

Man was created in Gods image, Old Testament statement all Jews knew and understood christs words and relevance
money in ceaser image

Jesus was telling people to devote themselves, their body's, their hearts and minds to God, He didn't care about the money.
Jesus was telling people to give themselves to God, why are so many Christians so hooked up on money
Jesus didn't come to save money (cool pun) He came for people

So many people put money in to religion and live like heathens, Christ was countering that problem
Jesus was saying He wanted us to give God ourselves

Render unto God what is Gods, we were created by God in His image

Get it

a reply to: Raggedyman
Agree. The quote "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's etc", is also about the separation of state from God and indicates that there are limits.

Caesar can do what he likes, but at the end of the day he's not God and does not therefore have jurisdiction over your soul.

It's actually quite a meaningful quote which can be over-analysed!

a reply to: Profusion

It still is not a fiat currency, the definition of a precious metal, hard currency is a commodity currency because it can be metaled down and still retains its value if not more in some cases.

The Romans also accepted coinage from other nations as fair trade which is certainly not Caesar's fiat.

This is simple history and economics.

a reply to: ancientthunder

None of that is relative to Roman currency being a non-fiat, commodity currency.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? I mean your response. Not the obvious.

It doesn't matter if the currency was hard currency or not. The purpose and the point is still the same.



Personally, I'd enjoy that bad of popcorn while watching the whole system fail. Though, I imagine the mad amounts of casualties but I suppose there would be lots of irony involved.

a reply to: Profusion


Very good point and post. I see what you're getting at, clearly. I don't understand many of the arguments here. I just have to assume that some of these guys are doing it just to see themselves argue an obvious point.

Walk away from the system and your handlers no longer have a dog to tie the leash. If the system is so corrupt, simply walking away from it would allow it to fall. Of course, the backlash would be deadly. People would starve, marshal law would be declared, people would be forced to submit to the system, etc etc.

The world would burn...

originally posted by: StallionDuck
It doesn't matter if the currency was hard currency or not. The purpose and the point is still the same.

It does in the context of the Original Post which claimed it was fiat.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Profusion

It still is not a fiat currency, the definition of a precious metal, hard currency is a commodity currency because it can be metaled down and still retains its value if not more in some cases.

The Romans also accepted coinage from other nations as fair trade which is certainly not Caesar's fiat.

This is simple history and economics.

I'm sorry I have to use wikipedia as a source but what I'm referring to below is well-sourced information:

Fiat money has been defined variously as:

Any money declared by a government to be legal tender.[5]
State-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.[6]
Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree.[1]
en.wikipedia.org...

I stated that I was referring to the first definition of "fiat money" above in the original post. You seem to be claiming that that definition isn't a valid definition. Your rationale is "the definition of a precious metal, hard currency is a commodity currency because it can be metaled down and still retains its value if not more in some cases." That point is irrelevant to the definition I'm using.

If we use the second definition above, Rome used "fiat money" as the following link demonstrates in my opinion:

ROMAN CURRENCY OF THE PRINCIPATE

Their money was not "convertible by law to any other thing." And, it was not "fixed in value in terms of any objective standard" IMHO because as the link above demonstrates, the value of the currency was debased relatively frequently and for a long period of time.

As to the third definition above, I'm claiming that nothing has intrinsic value while you're basing your argument on the idea that there is such a thing. I think that it's up to you to prove that intrinsic value exists because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, since you can't prove it, I don't expect you to try.

"The Romans also accepted coinage from other nations as fair trade which is certainly not Caesar's fiat."

Assuming that's true, I don't see how it relates to what we're discussing which is whether the money that Jesus was talking about was fiat money.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Profusion


Very good point and post. I see what you're getting at, clearly. I don't understand many of the arguments here. I just have to assume that some of these guys are doing it just to see themselves argue an obvious point.

Walk away from the system and your handlers no longer have a dog to tie the leash. If the system is so corrupt, simply walking away from it would allow it to fall. Of course, the backlash would be deadly. People would starve, marshal law would be declared, people would be forced to submit to the system, etc etc.

The world would burn...

There is a major problem with nuclear power plant upkeep. But beyond that and a few similar things...

Why would people starve?

How could marshal law be declared if the soldiers all resigned?

How could people be forced to submit to the system if there was no one to enforce it?

The oligarchs and the monarchs aren't strong enough try to do those last two things, who would do it for them?

originally posted by: Profusion
Their money was not "convertible by law to any other thing."

It most certainly was. It could be converted into jewelry due to the precious metal content. Or melted and restruck as different coinage.

And, it was not "fixed in value in terms of any objective standard" IMHO because as the link above demonstrates, the value of the currency was debased relatively frequently and for a long period of time.

Its value was based on the precious metal content and therefore its value was based on that standard. Gold and silver have intrinsic value and even if a Aureus was debased to the point of being half its previous value as currency the gold is not worth any less by gross weight, there is just less of it per coin.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Profusion
Their money was not "convertible by law to any other thing."

It most certainly was. It could be converted into jewelry due to the precious metal content. Or melted and restruck as different coinage.

"convertible by law to any other thing"

The following quote is what the quote above is referring to:

In the old days of the gold standard, every paper dollar could be converted to a gold dollar at any bank on demand.
www.small-business-goldmine.com...

That's what it means to be "convertible by law" to another thing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

And, it was not "fixed in value in terms of any objective standard" IMHO because as the link above demonstrates, the value of the currency was debased relatively frequently and for a long period of time.

Its value was based on the precious metal content and therefore its value was based on that standard. Gold and silver have intrinsic value and even if a Aureus was debased to the point of being half its previous value as currency the gold is not worth any less by gross weight, there is just less of it per coin.

The value of the currency was debased relatively frequently and for a long period of time so I don't see how you can claim it was "fixed in value in terms of any objective standard." My claim here is that if the value wasn't fixed for very long and it was frequently debased, the value wasn't truly fixed at all.

Also, it's up to you to prove that intrinsic value exists. You just keep repeating that it's true. Unless you can do a lot better than that I'm not continuing in this debate.

originally posted by: Profusion
"convertible by law to any other thing"

The following quote is what the quote above is referring to:

In the old days of the gold standard, every paper dollar could be converted to a gold dollar at any bank on demand.
www.small-business-goldmine.com...

We are not talking about the current or previous paper currency of the United States, we are discussing an actual precious metal based currency. Convertible dollars are not the same thing as an actual commodity currency.

Again, it's up to you to prove that intrinsic value exists. You just keep repeating that it's true. Unless you can do a lot better than that I'm not continuing in this debate.

You can prove to yourself that precious metal has its own intrinsic value. Go buy some.

Your right, but only half right. Either your agumentation is logical alone and you feel safe on that shore. Or simply you are trying to dominate the focus. For me! your ground is sinking underneath your weight rapidly. Hey but no worries, Im not holding any gold or silver in my pockets.a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Profusion
"convertible by law to any other thing"

The following quote is what the quote above is referring to:

In the old days of the gold standard, every paper dollar could be converted to a gold dollar at any bank on demand.
www.small-business-goldmine.com...

We are not talking about the current paper currency of the United States, we are discussing an actual precious metal based currency. Convertible dollars are not the same thing as an actual commodity currency.

Let's get back to what we're discussing. There are three possible definitions of fiat money as far as I know and you haven't disputed that.

Fiat money has been defined variously as:

Any money declared by a government to be legal tender.[5]
State-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.[6]
Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree.[1]
en.wikipedia.org...

If we go by the first definition, I win the debate. You haven't disputed that.

If we go by the second definition, I have to prove that Rome's money was neither convertible by law to any other thing and that it was not fixed in value in terms of any objective standard. You're not even claiming that Rome's money was convertible by law to any other thing. As to whether Rome's money was "fixed in value in terms of any objective standard", I'll quote from the Tulane article:

Severan emperors (193-235) steadily debased the denarius from a standard of 78.5% to 50% fine; in 212 Caracalla reduced the weight of the aureus from 45 to 50 to the Roman pound.
www.tulane.edu...

The words "steadily debased" are used and I believe that it was too much of a debasement and too steady to call Rome's money "fixed in value in terms of any objective standard." You haven't disputed that. I believe I clearly win in terms of the second definition.

You haven't shown any proof that such a thing as "intrinsic value" exists. So, the third definition above can apply to Rome's money unless you can prove that it can't.

I'm done debating this, thanks. I had a great time.

originally posted by: Profusion
You're not even claiming that Rome's money was convertible by law to any other thing.

I did, reread my posts.

You haven't shown any proof that such a thing as "intrinsic value" exists.

Are you claiming gold has no intrinsic value?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Except the Romans did not use a fiat currency, it was a hard, commodity currency minted from precious metals and had its own intrinsic value.

Damn. Did you just bugger the entire thread?

 

ETA: Early flag here.

Am curious to hear what other people think about dumping everything they have ... and how long they think they can hold out. Something's afoot with the petrol dollar (and that means every currency affected by the US $). It's gonna happen sooner or later. Every fiat currency dies.

Know what has always failed? The Gold Standard system.

Actually, all systems eventually fail. All copper pipe welds eventually fail too. Some day, the North American plate will be a bunch of hot, molten goo under the ocean floor. We still use copper pipes and we're not jumping off the continent into life rafts, because they're still working for us currently. The same goes for fiat currencies.

a reply to: Yazidi

Ha Ha! Being an American means you are still ruled by the elite of the European royals/Emporers etc . Sorry to dispel your notion - l suggest you look up who is related to the Queen of England and her in Denmark - Bush and Obama for two are cousins.