Taxation isn't theft because the state's authority comes from God. Stefan's claim that this isn't true is NOT AN ARGUMENT.
>Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
>1 Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
Its not an argument because God isn't real nigga.
Taxation is extortion though, not theft.
>>73709149
Stefan often criticizes atheists for embracing the state more than Christians but Christians are called to embrace monarchy, when they are for less government, what they are really for is less secular government that has fallen away from monarchy and therefore not a force for good.
>Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:3-7)
Christians are the new covenant, heirs according to the promise of Abraham, and were promised kings and nations.
>Genesis 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you.
Jesus made us kings on earth
>Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.”
Christians should be monarchists; Christian who is not is guilty of secularism which Fr. Alexander Schemann called "the great heresy of our time". Stefan believes Christians are closer to embracing his voluntarism but his beliefs are much closer to atheism than they are Christianity. And if atheists are guilty of irrationally replacing God with the state, the Stefan is guilty of irrationally replacing God with the individual.
>>73709149
Except that's Paul and not God who says that.
>>73709242
>1 Peter 2:17
Extortion is theft. When someone mugs you/threatens to mug you and takes your stuff they steal from you.
>>73709282
But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them (1 Samuel 8:6-7).
>>73709436
Ignore the greentext.
Taxation is more sophisticated than theft.
>>73709457
You're literally supporting the idea that God hates the idea of men who want to be ruled by other men with that verse. That's one of the strongest supporting verses for Christian anarchism in the entire Bible.
>>73709436
No. Theft is taking someone's property without their consent. Robbery is doing the same with immediate threat or usage of violence. Extortion is somewhat similiar to robbery, is not limited to taking property and doesn't require an immediate threat of violence.
>>73709149
>>73709149
>ITT: Arguments
that's definitely not an argument because these threads have never ever contained a single argument.
>>73709573
If he hates the idea why give the blessing? You could say this verse implies monarchy is the 2nd best government to an actual theocracy, but it is still clearly better than all the other forms of government.There are multiple times in the book of Judges where it says "there was no king in Israel" and "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" and it was said in a very negative way each time. Democracy existed for 500 years already to the Greek influenced Roman empire and individual kings are condemned but monarchy itself never is. There are no verses supporting anarchy in the Bible. If you have any verses you are interpreting that way you are wrong.
>>73709857
So you believe consent is something someone can give under duress. Neat. Because extortion necessarily involves duress, or else it's not extortion at all.
The point about property would be well and good if taxation hasn't in the past involved forced labor as "payment".
>>73710094
He didn't. Them getting a king was literally punishment. They insisted on something that was bad for them, and God gave it to them.
>>73709149
Libertarians simply don't love their race
>>73709550
So sophistication justifies immorality? If I kill someone with an elaborate Rube-Goldberg machine, does that make it okay? Literally not a fucking argument.
>>73710135
>Because extortion necessarily involves duress, or else it's not extortion at all.
Duress
>Threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will
How is that not taxation?
>>73709149
We should have just listened to Samuel
>>73710289
It is taxation. I'm an anarchist. I don't know what you're trying to say at this point - first you argue extortion isn't theft, I respond with an explanation of why it is, and now you're asking me how it isn't taxation even though I hold (and everyone *should* hold) that it is.
>hurr le taxes are ebul
You always have the option of renouncing your citizenship and leaving your state.
>>73710262
Anything that makes them feel better is what they'll spout.
People take consolation in absurdities constantly in life.
>>73710214
>Them getting a king was literally punishment
No it wasn't. He warned them of what comes with monarchy but He answered the cries of the people. It's not punishment if you give the people what they want(and they didn't want punishment).
>And [Samuel] said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles (1 Samuel 8:11-20).
>>73709149
Societies have chosen not to reject taxation through democracy, so it is justified.
>>73710485
Take of that fucking trip, you attentionwhoring cunt.
>>73710761
Democracy doesn't justify anything though. It's just mob rule that gets glorified by modern Western society.
>>73710705
There's nothing more punishing than having some sinful, worthless other person lord over you as if they actually mattered. It's a pathetic sight.
If someone asks you to cut their perfectly healthy legs off and you do it, it's punishment. It hardly matters that you were asking for it - it's a bad idea and they're going to suffer for it. They wanted a king because all the Godless heathens around them had one and it looked exotic and compelling to their pathetic souls. Low and behold - they got one.
>>73710837
Only if you kill yourself first, you anime-loving Finn.
>he doesn't believe in divine right
fuck off leftist scum
>>73711002
I love it when people spout shit like this but offer no realistic alternatives.
>>73711002
It's "glorified" because it's the most just way for society to be governed. Taxation could be done away with, in the US at least, if enough people wanted it.
>>73711258
Leaving each other the fuck alone is pretty realistic. Unless you're telling me you're literally so pathetic and lonely that you can't help but try to control other people and bend them to your whim with violence, or else more probably use other people who aren't as weak as you to do so on your behalf.
>>73709149
>>73709240
>>73709242
>>73709255
>>73709282
>>73709436
>>73709457
>>73709458
>>73709550
>>73709573
>>73709857
>>73709949
>>73710042
>>73710094
>>73710135
>>73710214
>>73710237
>>73710262
>>73710289
>>73710302
>>73710485
>>73710536
>>73710577
>>73710705
>>73710761
>>73710837
>>73711002
>>73711030
>>73711088
>>73711158
>>73711258
>>73711322
>>73711396
not an argument
>>73709149
Who pays the tax, the foreigner or the king's son?
>>73711258
Why would I have to? It's just a blank statement written on a sockpuppet forum. It's not even an argument.
>>73711322
How is it just? That there's more people involved in ruling over others? What makes it so different from having single party, or a single ruler?
>>73711030
A punishment is a penalty for a crime or a sin. There is no sin in wanting a king, only danger, and that's why God warns Samuel but still allows it. If God was so against it He would have said no. If it was so ungodly then Jesus himself wouldn't have said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
>>73711700
>there is no sin in wanting a king
"Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them"
I didn't know rejecting God wasn't a sin. That's some "interesting" version of Christianity you're smoking.
>>73711396
>or else more probably use other people who aren't as weak as you to do so on your behalf.
you mean like how private security firms would work in ancapitstan?
>>73711700
>"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
Please tell me a single thing that isn't God's. I'll wait.
>>73711919
If someone is roaming around forcing people who haven't violated NAP to abide by their rules, you have a state. I'm not an ancap anyway - I'm a voluntarist.
>>73711396
Are you saying there should be no government? Democracy or otherwise? Interesting, but hardly realistic in my opinion.
>>73711485
A democracy allows all people the potential to affect the society they live in, and allows a government to most closely reflect the will of its citizens.
>>73712240
So it's not realistic that you not force yourself on others? You must have quite the twisted psychology.
>>73711396
>Leaving each other the fuck alone is pretty realistic
No it's not.
Societies and institutions are product of societal evolution.
There is no consensus among population for your ideas.
As I said, if you don't like it, you can always leave.
>with violence
Societies based on violence and nothing else usually don't last long, and there have been very few examples of something like that in history.
>>73711899
They had turned away from God a long time before that and suffered a long time. The monarchy was part of the solution, even if it wasn't a complete solution. They still needed Jesus for their salvation.
>>73711960
It is not to be taken completely literally, just like anything Jesus said there is a literal, allegorical, and spiritual interpretation.
>>73712398
>no it's not
You must be a trainwreck of a person.
Molyneux's statement that tax is theft is flawed because one of its premises is that I don't want to give my money to the state for some service it provides. Nor does this constitute a market; the state is not necessarily competing with others to perform its services.
I want the state to take my money because I can see that state-run services can be superior to market-run alternatives or are the only services of a kind that exist because they are not profitable.
>>73712488
>they had turned away from God long before that
Yes - they had. And they continued to do so - begging for a king being yet another instance of them being idiots.
>>73709149
but the state's authority doesn't come from god, our rights come from god
>>73712547
Except in the OT a monarchy represents a separation from God, whereas in the NT no such separation exists, so people can live blessed lives with God AND monarchy, as opposed to no God and lawlessness.
>>73712488
>It is not to be taken completely literally
That's your opinion. Some of His Words were meant quite literally - to deny so would be to deny far too much that's integral to salvation. That would be far too dishonest a verse to mean otherwise coming from the Mouth of Christ is how I read Mark 12:16/Matthew 22:21.
>>73712490
Literally not an argument. This entire thread you just resort to ad hominem while failing to defend your ideas.
>b-but like dude, everyone should leave everyone alone, k, and if you don't agree ure weak and pathetic
>>73711485
You don't have to do anything really but if you offer no alternatives your criticism is simply pointless. ''Having to drink water is awful''.
>>73709149
>He fell for the God meme.
>>73712325
Democracy has the potential to remove or restrict government's authority to use force.
>>73712748
>whereas in the NT no such separation exists
Bull. Christ's entire life on earth was in defiance of worldly "authority". Herod, then the Jews, then the Romans. His entire life and ministry was in spite of them trying to "put Him in line".
>>73712774
>That's your opinion
No it is what the Church teaches
>Some of His Words were meant quite literally
Even when there is a correct literal interpretation there is still an allegorical and spiritual interpretation, so if you're literally right, you're only 1/3 right.
>>73712833
If you can't help but inject your worthless existence upon other people, you *ARE* weak and pathetic. I don't think many people would actually disagree with the premise that if someone is *existentially incapable* of not being a needy busy-body faggot, they're weak/pathetic.
>>73713050
That really wasn't an argument
>>73712893
Except democracy, insofar as it involves a state (virtually all definitions in reference to political democracy do) are necessarily using force against people. State's are necessarily violent/threaten violence, or else they're not states.
>>73709149
Paul said that, not Jesus or God.
>>73712965
I'm not a Catholic. I don't take the words of other sinners as law - sola Scriptura.
>>73712929
Right that's why he said render unto Caesar, and his disciples said to honor the king. If you are saying Jesus condones your anarchy you are blaspheming and should try reading the bible without your anarchist lenses.
>>73713123
I agree.
>>73713215
He meant it exactly how any believer would take that verse - what substance does "render unto God what is God's" have if Caesar owns *anything* that God doesn't? No Jew nor Christian would ever hold that Caesar owns a single thing that isn't God's.
>>73713056
Another ad hominem.
>I don't think
You think wrong. For example, as I said, overwhelming majority of people even in America don't share your opinions.
People disagree on amount of authority state should have, but overwhelming majority of people support existence of state, as well as existence of taxation.
I already told you: if you don't like it, you can always leave.
>>73713183
I'm Orthodox
>sola Scriptura
Heresy. You are not only wrong about basic doctrine, you are perverting the Gospel into justifying your lawlessness and your individualism. I'll pray for you, tripfag. You sound very confused, but it's not all your fault. ""Hell is a democracy but heaven is a kingdom." - St. John of Kronstadt.
>>73713363
You think wrong.
Wow, how substantial.
My premise was one that people will agree with because they don't naturally make the connection with a state when answering it. Nobody except an incredibly small percentage of educated people on the subject have the understanding that governments are necessarily violent aggressors against others.
>>73713363
Also, if you don't like me arguing against your absurdities, you can just leave. Nothing's stopping you. Except the government "repossessing" your property, making you register with them, threatening imprisonment if you don't, etc.
>>73713449
You're a heretic.
Wow what a substantial claim.
You can think I'm perverting the Gospel - I'll keep thinking it's *you* who's doing so until I actually have a reason to think otherwise.
>>73713142
The word is unimportant. We could call our forceless government something else for all I care. It wouldn't last long, I imagine, since some group of citizens would probably try to take over in its place. Or we would be invaded for lack of a military.
>>73713821
It would be a more moral state of affairs. I don't really care how long it lasts as long as it's morally right - and it is morally right.
A forceless "government" wouldn't be a government, by the way - no one is being governed or is governing.
>>73710536
Why don't you go full retard and tell people to kill themselves if they don't like something?
>>73713980
Can you possibly be any more butthurt?
>>73713532
>Wow, how substantial.
Better than ad hominems.
>was one that people will agree with
Nope.
>Nobody except an incredibly small percentage of educated people on the subject
What subject?
Your thoughts are nothing radical. ''Everyone should leave everyone alone''. Sure. A 10 year old kid thinks like that. That will never happen. That's not how human nature is. Human will always ally with other humans in order to fuck over other humans.
You're utopians in the same way communists are. One group is extremely collectivist, other is extremely individualist. In real life, neither idea works. Ultimate freedom always gives birth to slavery.
I wouldn't have to explain all this to you if you were really educated, but you aren't. You just stumbled upon a half-baked idea and you never bothered to understand the implications of it.
>>73713980
I'm not doing that.
Someone who feels society and state are evil concepts should leave such society and state that arises from it.
>>73713737
You are beyond reasoning.
>there is no Church authority the bible can mean whatever I want it to mean
>there is no state I can do whatever I want to do
It astonishes me that you even consider yourself a Christian, if you were just some fedora it might make sense in a retarded sort of way, but you actually distort scripture into serving your interests. People like you used to get burned at the stake. You should repent and come back to the Church, you are not in a good place spiritually.
>>73709149
> the state's authority comes from God
So why are US against God?
>>73714181
>Ultimate freedom always gives birth to slavery
Taxes are slavery, so it makes no difference, at least the slave master in a free society is someone who is not legitimate and might find himself with a hole in his head trying to collect your labor.
>>73714181
>people don't agree with the premise that if you are physically incapable of not forcing other people to conform to your whims you are a weak and pathetic individual
L
E
L
Please tell me what human nature is. I want to see you point out a universal quality of humans more complex than "they think", since that's the best all philosophers of identity/mind/science/etc have been able to do in the last few millenia.
>>73714350
>I can do whatever I want to
Yeah, cuz I totally believe God doesn't have explicit commands I'm supposed to live by. Not at all. Why would a Christian ever believe that without being told to by some random retard who calls himself a priest?
Great logic. Enjoy your life ;)
>>73714373
Because the left is riddled with fifth columnists who are doing everything they can to destabilize this nation's most sacred institutions.
>>73714332
So basically you're telling people that if they don't like something, instead of trying to change it they should leave, which is pretty much the same as telling them to kill themselves if they don't like something, a cowards way out that offers the state a legitimacy they simply don't have: The legitimacy to own your land.
But even if I went out of the country, where exactly would I go where my private property is respected? The socialist consensus is universal.
>>73714460
Taxes are self-imposed in a democracy, so they are not slavery.
>>73714460
R A R E
A
R
E
>>73714579
>Why would a Christian ever believe that without being told to by some random retard who calls himself a priest?
Oh I don't know, maybe it has something to do with Jesus giving the Apostles the keys the kingdom and the power to bind and loose, and the Apostles ordaining bishops, deacons, presbyters in the NT, following a tradition going back to Genesis. Why trust yourself to follow the commandments of God when you can't even follow the words of the Bible or the authority God has given to the Church? You've already demonstrated that you cannot do so without coming to a heretical understanding of Christianity and a retarded worldview in general.
>>73714820
The burden isn't on the anarchist to leave if they don't like being aggressed upon to begin with.
It's on the statist to *stop aggressing*.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTqEePlZiqk
>>73714965
I find that really, *really* funny, since the only things that unambiguously affirm apostolic succession are all extra-Biblical.
You believe apostolic succession is justified by chruch tradition. You in turn believe church tradition is reliable because you have a hierarchy that affirms it. You believe your hierarchy is truthful because they are affirmed by apostolic succession.
That's viciously circular reasoning.
>>73714922
Democracy, when imposed upon those who do not wish to participate of the results of the vote, leads to slavery, because you give some people the power to access to someone else's labor against their consent.
>>73710536
not an argument
>>73714676
It was not left who abandoned Gods Authority Rule of Britan. The entire existence of US who disobeyed The King is anti-God and satanic.
>>73715007
In what part of my post did I imply that the burden is on the anarchist? Pretty sure the part of "state a legitimacy they simply don't have" was clear in that respect.
>>73715307
>imposed upon those who do not wish to participate of the results of the vote
Democracy isn't imposed, it's democratically voted for.
>>73715457
You didn't. I'm just adding to the point.
>>73715200
I could give you plenty of verses for apostolic succession but you're just going to sola scripturatard it up so why bother.
>>73715479
Unless people unanimously agree to the rules or else to be bound by the results of the procedure in which the rules are decided, it is imposed on those people who did neither.
Oh look it's a believerfag struggling to grasp the modern world thread. Neat.
>>73715479
The results of democratic votes are imposed even for those who didn't wish to participate or expose their property and labor to the democratic decision of others.
>>73715567
And what would happen is I would give you an alternative interpretation that is completely within the bounds of reason, and you would tell me it was wrong because the church says its wrong, and then I would refer you back to >>73715200 .
You utilize circular reasoning no matter what you do.
>>73709149
Anyone that doesn't want to take part in the society he's born in has the option to physically remove himself from said society's influence and pick one that's more to their liking. Somalia for example.
>>73715631
Can you name a single thing a Christian necessarily fails to grasp that is a Truth about the world?
>>73715756
>>73715827
Anyone who exists in proximity to someone else has the option of not forcing themselves on those people around them.
How would living without taxes even work though? Do you regulate who does and who doesn't walk down the road because they didn't pay for it?
Paying for someone else's college course is one thing, but there's also some bare necessities that are needed for a society to function
>>73709149
>state's authority comes from God
I thought we dispelled this meme years ago
>>73715885
It nets me return conversations with other people on a board where conversations often reach bump limits.
I don't know why I'd ever not use one given I like having return and extended discussions with people.
>>73715307
There is no better way for a society to be operated than according to the will of the majority of people who live there. People who desire change have the opportunity to sway opinion or find a place where the majority share their opinion.
>>73715756
And you'd be guilty of the same circular reasoning. Why are you right and the Church is wrong? Because you are right and the Church is wrong. And who decides? You decide. At least in my case I have the great ecumencial councils and thousands of years of Catholic and Orthodox history and tradition on my side. Your authority is nothing but your autistic self and if you think that's the way Jesus wants you to live your life you are mistaking him for Satan.
>>73716153
"Society" isn't operated. All you have is individuals doing whatever they're doing in any state of affairs at any moment t1.
And the best way for individuals to operate is peacefully.
>>73715886
Taxation isn't "forcing themselves on those people around them" - it's your staying fee.
>>73715847
In order to be a Christian you have to justify a belief in God and since all the popular reasons to believe in God are unsalvageable bad you can say that all Christians are dummies.
>>73716335
>You'd be guilty of the same circular reasoning
Actually I wouldn't, because I don't hold I'm incontrovertibly right. I leave up entirely the possibility that I'm wrong. You *don't*, because you follow a *dogma*, which literally means "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true".
I tend to believe I'm right, because I think the spirit of Scripture is best represented and most consistent with the views I hold as opposed to other views as it stands now in t1. YOU, on the other hand, hold *YOU'RE* simply right. And you won't hear otherwise - and the reasoning you use to instantiate your "rightness" is viciously circular.
>>73716348
You don't own the land under my feet. You can say you do all you want - it won't make it true.
>>73716396
Since all beliefs are ultimately subject to the same arbitrary adoption, you'd have to ascribe the quality of "bad" to quite literally all other beliefs more ambitious than "there are thoughts".
I very highly doubt you'd want to do that unless you're a solipsist.
>>73711415
Is there a way to quickly respond to multiple posts or are you that much of an autismo?
>>73716722
You don't own the land under your feet (after all, you need to pay a tax on it). You can say you do all you want - it won't make it true.
The fact is, the state does and it will continue to do so as long as it exists simply based on the fact that they can throw you in prison if you don't pay your staying fee and shoot you dead if you resist.
>Jacques Ellul, a French philosopher and Christian anarchist, notes that the final verse of the Book of Judges (Judges 21:25) states that there was no king in Israel and that "everyone did as they saw fit".[7][8][9] Subsequently, as recorded in the first Book of Samuel (1 Samuel 8) the people of Israel wanted a king "so as to be like other nations".[10][11] God declared that the people had rejected him as their king. He warned that a human king would lead to militarism, conscription and taxation, and that their pleas for mercy from the king's demands would go unanswered. Samuel passed on God's warning to the Israelites but they still demanded a king, and Saul became their ruler.[12][13] Much of the subsequent Old Testament chronicles the Israelites trying to live with this decision.[14]
>>73717038
You can think whatever you want, senpai. God's gonna judge you either way.
They can shoot me or imprison me - I *really* couldn't care less.
>>73709149
>MUH RELIGION
fucking kys
>>73716681
>I leave up entirely the possibility that I'm wrong
You are still limited by your own reason. Jesus gives authority to the Church as the kingdom on earth. Your sin is pride, for not having humility to accept that there is an understanding of scripture that goes higher than yourself.
>>73717112
The guy is a Catholic. He won't listen to anyone other than his retarded clergy.
Why don't Christians just allow other people to kill them? Quicker access to paradise, no? The fuck are y'all doing here still?
>1 Samuel 24:9 Then he shouted to Saul, “Why do you listen to the people who say I am trying to harm you? 10 This very day you can see with your own eyes it isn’t true. For the Lord placed you at my mercy back there in the cave. Some of my men told me to kill you, but I spared you. For I said, ‘I will never harm the king—he is the Lord’s anointed one.’ 11 Look, my father, at what I have in my hand. It is a piece of the hem of your robe! I cut it off, but I didn’t kill you. This proves that I am not trying to harm you and that I have not sinned against you, even though you have been hunting for me to kill me.
>12 “May the Lord judge between us. Perhaps the Lord will punish you for what you are trying to do to me, but I will never harm you. 13 As that old proverb says, ‘From evil people come evil deeds.’ So you can be sure I will never harm you. 14 Who is the king of Israel trying to catch anyway? Should he spend his time chasing one who is as worthless as a dead dog or a single flea? 15 May the Lord therefore judge which of us is right and punish the guilty one. He is my advocate, and he will rescue me from your power!”
>16 When David had finished speaking, Saul called back, “Is that really you, my son David?” Then he began to cry. 17 And he said to David, “You are a better man than I am, for you have repaid me good for evil. 18 Yes, you have been amazingly kind to me today, for when the Lord put me in a place where you could have killed me, you didn’t do it. 19 Who else would let his enemy get away when he had him in his power? May the Lord reward you well for the kindness you have shown me today. 20 And now I realize that you are surely going to be king, and that the kingdom of Israel will flourish under your rule. 21 Now swear to me by the Lord that when that happens you will not kill my family and destroy my line of descendants!”
>>73717147
>You can think whatever you want, senpai.
Of course, but unlike you I'd like to stay in reality with my thoughts.
>They can shoot me or imprison me - I *really* couldn't care less.
Then there should be no problem with you not owning the land under your feet.
>>73717198
Of course I'm limited by my own reason - so is *EVERY OTHER PERSON*.
The one who isn't humble is the person who insists they're *INCONTROVERTIBLY RIGHT* despite having *no logical reason for believing so*.
>>73717112
And David and Solomon came after Saul
>>73717358
Nice meme bro. "Reality". Top kek.
I'm commanded to preach against sin - I don't care what you do to me, but if something is a sin I'm gonna call it a sin until you bury me. And then I'm going to call it sin some more.
>>73717328
I'm not gonna fight you if you want to kill me. I've heavily considered flying to some Muslim shithole to preach and be murdered for the past few years. I'm getting closer to doing it.
>>73715307
This is not an argument.
Nobody is stopping you from leaving the country.
this is bullshit but I will save it for future use
>>73717886
Nobody is stopping you from ceasing to violently impose yourself on others either.
>>73717390
I'm not saying I am right, I'm saying the Church is right. I am nothing. The Church is right because Jesus gave the Church the keys and the power to bind and loose. Jesus is right because he is the Son of God. As a member of the Church I am not limited by my own reason because I accept that there are things beyond my understanding and comprehension. You on the other hand read the bible literally and place yourself as an authority as to what it means as limited by your own knowledge of thousands of years of history and oral tradition that isn't recorded in the Bible, and you do this out of pride and ignorance.
>>73717990
So the priests are something, in your mind. Why are they something while you're nothing? They aren't just a worthless sinner like you and me? Through the magical process of other worthless people voting for you, you gain the magical power of being right!
>>73717951
The vast majority of the union is in consensus, else the union would not exist.
You do not have the right to tell the larger group to acquiesce to your minority demands.
You need to leave.
>>73716846
>nothing is true and you're allowed to believe anything
kek, you bring me back to my prime fedora years.
Whether or not you accept a proposition and start believing it isn't arbitrary. Whether or not you adopt a belief into your belief system is a complicated process but it's ultimately determined by how "appealing" it is to you.
You can use food as a metaphor for ideas, if something doesn't taste good you won't swallow. "Taste" itself is strictly speaking arbitrary but it also serves a purpose so we can sort of objectively judge another person's taste by how useful their taste is. If someone eats poison there are real world negative consequences for it, so we can say they have shit taste. If someone lets shit ideas inside them we can say they have shit discernment, they can't tell the difference between food and poison.
>>73718447
You don't have the right to tell anyone to adhere to your arbitrary standards.
You need to fuck a goat.
>>73718465
I neither said nor implied nothing is true.
I'm asking you what you think is true, so I can tell you why you're wrong.
>>73718515
Yes, we do. It's called the right of the majority. You can kindly fuck off to a community that agrees with YOUR arbitrary bullshit, because 95% of the country prefers the existing arbitrary bullshit.
>>73717390
>/pol/
>tripfagging
>writing that post
^not an argument
>>73718465
>it's ultimately determined by how "appealing" it is to you
That's the definition of arbitrary. You could find anything else just as appealing. The fact that you end up with one set of views over another is simply due to exposure versus time constraints.
>>73718626
Doesn't exist. Are you fucking your goat yet?
>>73717390
fuck off with the trip, dude. Just stop. You can add value to a discussion with ideas, not the "OH LOOK AT MY WONDERFUL TRIPCODE GUYS!"
>>73718713
>>73718695
fuck off already. I'll listen to you when you drop the trip
>>73718713
Not an argument.
Obviously it does exist, because we exist in a society that hasn't been overthrown yet.
We don't agree with you, and we don't want to listen to you. Get out.
>>73718780
If you want cute anime girls all you have to do is ask
Also [not an argument].
>>73718713
this bitch is LITERALLY tripfagging on /pol/
>>73715999
you can return to these conversations without the trip, dude. If people want to listen to you, offer an intersting idea/topic to discuss. If not, fuck off
>>73718213
>Through the magical process of other worthless people voting for you
Through the sacrament of ordination as seen in Acts 1:15-26; 6:1-6; 14:23; 1Ti 4:14; Titus 1:5. A priest is granted a certain level of economia but his teachings still have to be in line with Church doctrine, which is learned through catechism, many years of faithful service, seminary, and the wisdom of his bishop.
Titus 3:9 9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
>>73718823
Goats~
>>73718960
>>73718919
G ~ o ~ a ~ t ~ s ~ u ~
>>73718870
holy shit, she's actually bretty good.
charges dropped for now
>>73718944
Greek priests fucked their economia though
>>73718944
You mean the books God never says a word in? Woah. It's almost like people created a system in which they allocate power to themselves and make people subservient to them!
Naaaah. Who would *ever* do such a thing.
>Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, "Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. (1 Samuel 17:8)
>But God said to me, 'You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood.' (1 Chronicles 28:3)
>Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him. (Mark 12:17)
>"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, (Luke 6:27)
>>73718584
>I neither said nor implied nothing is true.
>all beliefs are ultimately subject to the same arbitrary adoption, you'd have to ascribe the quality of "bad" to quite literally all other beliefs more ambitious than "there are thoughts".
Sure sounded like you're saying there's no way to judge someone's justifications or beliefs.
>>73718695
I'm glad you decided to read another part of my post and write a second reply. Your "sense" comes from human nature, which is arbitrary because you could've been born differently natured. Someone could possibly be born in such a way that ridiculous things make sense to them and there's nothing we could do to convince them otherwise because their standards for "what makes sense" are different than ours. That could possibly happen but it's not the case in reality. Ordinary people, maybe not you specifically, share roughly the same human nature, so our sense of discernment is similar enough that we can operate as though there's a universal standard. If someone eats shit and says they enjoy it the normal reaction is to say they're full of shit, not that they were born with a different sense of taste.
>>73719146
>NT is uninspired
Stop calling yourself a Christian, please.
>>73719199
What's being implied is that ultimately you adopt a belief because you want to, since all beliefs outside "there are thoughts" are subject to doubt in some form or another.
You can judge beliefs, but to be intellectually honest you have to leave room for the possibility that you're wrong, and realize you're operating on assumptions about the world that are not necessarily true.
>>73709149
Taxation isn't theft because property rights only come from a book of law. This same book of laws defines what theft is and is not.
If you go into the jungle there is no concept of property. Ownership is based entirely on your ability to defend yourself. Other life forms, or hell even the forces of nature can destroy your food, wreck your house, or even take your life. Likewise you can take any item you want or destroy anything you want as long as you have the power within you.
Back to the example of laws. Laws likewise obey the rules of Power. They are only enforced if they have the power to be enforced. If no one catches you stealing or is willing to punish you than you have beaten the law.
>>73719262
I certainly believe it's inspired. I don't think Paul was insincere in his belief and love of Christ. I just think he was wrong, because he was a sinner just like you or I and subject to all the same failures of person we suffer.
>>73719199
>but it's not the case in reality
You've exhaustively searched all reality to make that determination?
If you think people "roughly" share the same nature, I'd want you to tell me what you think that nature is.
>>73712398
>Societies based on violence and nothing else usually don't last long, and there have been very few examples of something like that in history.
Name one society based entirely on violence. It does not exist.
Now name a society which is not rooted in violence and I'll tell you how wrong you are.
There is LITERALLY nothing wrong with violence. You only rally against it because your violence is incapable of overcoming my violence.
The only way you can stop my violence is through the threat of GREATER violence against me.
Violence and the threat of it is a core aspect of the mortal experience. It is a driving force of all living things, and is an inherent part of them AND all social interactions.
You cannot be alive without violence.
>>73719422
>I don't think Paul was insincere in his belief and love of Christ. I just think he was wrong
So you think you have a better understanding of the Christian faith than St. Paul, you must have delusions of grandeur or something. It'd be bad enough if you kept this heresy to yourself but here you are spreading it around, making yourself a false prophet. You are anathema, truly pitiable. Lord have mercy on you.
>>73709149
The only taxation I support is that which goes towards protection from foreign threats
>>73719741
And you think that some other person who's just as worthless and faulty as you has *better* understanding of *YOUR OWN FAITH* than you.
I don't expect your position to be judged favorably by God, but we'll both find out, won't we?
who cares about this faggot and his smug rambling?
I watched some video of his like "why I grew out of socialism" and he just spent 20 minutes saying "because it's wrong" and "I grew up" and other garbage
I'm no socialist but it was pure cringe and I haven't seen another video of his worth a fuck either
>>73719845
So Vinny mugs you, and pays Tony to stand by in your neighborhood to make sure the rival Spaghetti-Pizza gang doesn't make a fuss around there.
Mugging justified~
>>73719853
>literally appeared to by God and chosen as His messenger
>martyred and canonized as a Saint equal to the Apostles
>worthless
Yeah sure thing retard, why don't you just fuck off, tripfag. Your contributions to this board are fucking poison.
>>73719324
>ultimately you adopt a belief because you want to
You also swallow food because you want to, but if something tastes horrible it's hard to force yourself to swallow it.
If you honestly believe that the earth isn't flat for example, it'll be almost impossible to make yourself believe otherwise even if you really wanted to. Our beliefs are largely not conscious decisions. If I see a computer monitor in front of me I'm compelled to believe "there's a monitor". There is room for doubt but it's not a matter of whether or not I want to believe there's a monitor.
It should be simply, if not easy, to explain what is it that caused you believe in something, for most of your beliefs. If you can't come up with a justification, you'll be accused of being intellectually dishonest.
The fact that there is room to doubt is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether or not God exists, God may well exist but if your reason for believing in God is shit I will call you a retard, because you willingly accepted a belief in something despite having no good reason to think so. Likewise if you have a really good reason to believe in something but it turned out you were wrong I wouldn't call you a retard, because you had a good reason.
>>73709149
>Romans 13:1
The Romans believed early christians should obey the government?
Color me surprised.
>>73720186
Figuratively appeared to by God. You exulting other humans above you is what's so disgustingly anti-Christian about Catholicism. It's idolatry and blasphemy. Keep your heresy to yourself - it'll be better for other retards to not hear it.
>>73719546
>You've exhaustively searched all reality to make that determination?
A good sample size, yeah.
>If you think people "roughly" share the same nature, I'd want you to tell me what you think that nature is.
Ordinary people make an honest effort at understanding the world around them. People who aren't fanatics don't abandon common sense and say retarded shit like >all beliefs are ultimately subject to the same arbitrary adoption
>>73709149
So only religious nations (in this case, christian) have the "right to tax".
Welcome to my secular America nigger.
>>73720021
I wouldn't rely on the tax as my sole form of protection, I would protect myself from more immediate threats by means of a firearm if necessary.
>>73720241
Yep. Sure.
I think virtually all of my beliefs are conscious decisions, but I'm an incredibly self-reflective person, where most people don't waste time analyzing their own belief structures.
I can very easily disbelieve I have a computer monitor in front of me. I don't know that either of our anecdotes grapples with the reality of the premise though. Our own tendencies don't have much to do with whether, logically, we can instantiate our beliefs as true or not.
>It should be simply, if not easy, to explain what is it that caused you believe in something, for most of your beliefs. If you can't come up with a justification, you'll be accused of being intellectually dishonest
I don't think not understanding your own belief is grounds for saying someone is intellectually dishonest. That's at worst. At best they're simply ignorant or unreflective.
>God may well exist but if your reason for believing in God is shit I will call you a retard, because you willingly accepted a belief in something despite having no good reason to think so
But you've already admitted our reasonings for most beliefs function completely out of preference. The only criteria I'm going to apply to beliefs is whether or not they're logically consistent, which many if not most beliefs are.
>>73720362
>Figuratively appeared to by God
Don't even pretend like you follow the bible then if that's what you believe.
>exulting other humans above you
“Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
"For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed"
What now, tripfag? You've thrown out the writings of St. Paul, are you going to throw out the Gospel according to St. Luke also?
>Matthew 5:43 “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. 46 If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48 But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.
>The Talmud insists, with reference to Lev. xix. 18, that even the criminal at the time of execution should be treated with tender love (Sanh. 45a). As Schechter in "J. Q. R." x. 11, shows, the expression "Ye have heard . . ." is an inexact translation of the rabbinical formula, which is only a formal logical interrogation introducing the opposite view as the only correct one: "Ye might deduce from this verse that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy, but I say to you the only correct interpretation is, Love all men, even thine enemies."[4] According to Ahad Ha-am, the Torah's phrasing of "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is negative because it creates a "perfect equilibirum, with no leaning either to your side or to your neighbour's."[5]
>>73720566
You can't say "that's not the case in reality (period)" if you haven't searched it exhaustively. And we both hold that's not within our capabilities I think.
I don't think most people try to understand the world around them at all. I think most people are on auto-pilot and are more interested in pleasure-seeking than understanding.
There's nothing retarded about that statement - it's true. Ultimately you adopt any belief because you want to. It's a completely mundane observation and doesn't say much, but it's *true*.
>>73720929
Anyone who believes in Christ the Lord is blessed. Don't even try that garbage when you know that's true.
Read Acts 9 you stupid cunt. It can be taken as if it's figurative/he believed he had an experience that he actually didn't. People make up shit about what they experience all the time - many if not most don't believe they're even doing so, and think it's all true. I'm holding Paul to that, and you can't instantiate it wasn't the case.
I honestly hope making threads about Stefan Molyneux becomes a bannable offense. People shilling for this pseudointellectual are shitting the board.
>>73720708
I'm saying "taxes are justified if they go toward my defence from others", however you qualify others, isn't a good justification. Instead of simply Tony being stationed, imagined three thousand Tonies are hired and stationed, and the Spaghetti-Pizza gang is fifty-thousand men strong. It's still doesn't justify Vinny and gang beating/threatening your money/resources out of you.
>>73721611
CHI CHI CHI CHI
>>73721448
>Anyone who believes in Christ the Lord is blessed
"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" - St. James
Your theology is total shit, just fuck off until you learn something. Out of all the protestant faggots I've debated you are the least compelling.
>>73709149
well my authority to not be taxed come from my super hero which is real because i have books proving he is real
>>73721611
Whatever, guy from some place with a flag no one knows.
>>73709240
>god
not falsifiable.
>>73720923
>But you've already admitted our reasonings for most beliefs function completely out of preference. The only criteria I'm going to apply to beliefs is whether or not they're logically consistent, which many if not most beliefs are.
Wouldn't you say that the preference to only accept beliefs that are logically consistent (and I'll add consistent with our sensory experience of reality) is very popular? In your honest opinion, wouldn't you say that someone who neglects to consider the logicality of a certain belief is a dumbass, or at the very least naive?
If I propose to an adult that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east and they accept it without question, or they question it, realize it's inconsistent with their personal experience of the sun rising in the east, and accept it anyway, that person is going to have a very hard life because their sense of discernment is not only "different" from my own, it's also objectively broken. If a wild pig eats a poisonous frog that every other animal knows to stay away from and dies from food poisoning their ability to avoid danger isn't just different, it's inferior.
>>73722019
No theology is more of a shit-stain of anti-intellectual garbage than "lol I'm right because I believe what my priests tell me and they tell me it's right xD".
I feel *REALLY* sorry for your judgement. It's gonna be real.
>>73709255
>monarchist scum
Get the fuck out of my country you fucking beta faggot.
>>73721666
I see your point, fair enough
>>73722180
Yes, I think it's popular. I don't think most people actually understand what it means, and usually think it means something much narrower than it actually does, but I believe the vast majority of people at least *would* hold that if they understood what it meant to be so.
I'd agree with the "sensory" bit in regard to other people to, though I'm not one of those people.
I would insult them, sure. They wouldn't actually still necessarily be wrong, but my by my axiom - that logic consistency is a criteria for a truthful proposition - they would be wrong. It's still an assumption though.
It's not necessarily objectively broken. At best we can hold it's subjectively broken *without doubt*. I would surely like to call it objectively broken, and under my axioms I'm able to do so. But that's from a position of presuppositionalism, and ultimately I'm forced to say I can't hold that as an absolute truth.
>>73722333
Most people resist that conclusion because they feel uncomfortable with it. So that's cool. Good on you.
>>73722200
Oh yeah your theology is so intellectual
>monarchy is bad because it's a false substitute for God but somehow this justifies my further lawlessness in anarchism
>using scripture from the epistles in the NT to refute my arguments isn't valid because God isn't speaking in them, men are
>but the Gospel according to St. Luke is okay because Jesus speaks in them, as recorded decades later by St. Luke, a disciple of St. Paul, who was a false a messenger of God and was wrong about the teachings of Jesus he wrote about in his epistles that I reject
>Gabriel was lying and Mary is no more full of grace than any other believer
Yeah, real "intellectual" please continue to enlighten us some more.
>>73722774
>Christian
>lawless
You're so brilliant.
>>73722863
Lawful according to yourself maybe, too bad you aren't an authority or a deity. Your anarchism and your heretical understanding of Christianity puts you at odds with both the state and the Church, hence you are lawless.
>>73709149
Disturbing lack of molymemes ITT
>>73723426
I follow the authority *OF* *THE* Deity.
I don't follow idiots like you - and there's very little in my life I'm more glad of.
Taxation isn't theft because the monarchy, and by extension the government, already declared ownership of Britain 1400 years ago. What Molyjew doesn't understand is that all property is a concept that requires violent enforcement. We're all tenants in the great house of the British monarchy, and for Amerilards, Obama.
>>73723519
>I follow the authority *OF* *THE* Deity.
Except you don't, because Jesus established the Church, the kingdom on earth, and gave authority to the Church, which you are not a follower of. You are like a child claiming to be obedient to their parents while being a royal cunt to the babysitter.
>>73709149
>ITT: Arguments
>Starts spouting some supernatural non-existing bullshit
Nigga, is you retarded? That's literally not an argument.
Also, Taxation is Theft.
>>73723761
>except you don't
Say your priests, who you believe are truthful because apostolic succession, who you believe is valid because it's part of your tradition, which you believe is validated because your priests tell you it's valid.
Give up. Your entire belief structure is logically *pathetic*.
>Soc. Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. But I would have you consider, Crito, whether you really mean what you are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can only despise one another, when they see how widely they differ. Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise of our agreement? Or do you decline and dissent from this? For this has been of old and is still my opinion; but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have to say. If, however, you remain of the same mind as formerly, I will proceed to the next step.
>>73709149
>the state's authority comes from God
>>73709255
>Christians should be monarchists; Christian who is not is guilty of secularism
This is bullshit and unsupported in both modern and ancient Christianity -- it was only propped up when the Christian Church was first wielded as an instrument of the state by Constantine (and consolidated as such by the Holy Roman Emperors like Charlemagne up to the 20th century), not vice versa.
>"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."
That statement right there is a simple straightforward declaration of secularism, a fundamental separation of the temporal kings from the spiritual. More literally for Stefan's idiotic rant, state taxation has nothing to do with God.
>>73723735
Declaring you own something ownership does not make.
>>73723974
Tell me; to a Christian, what is not God's?
>>73711415
Not an argument.
>>73709149
Taxation is theft because all I got in my tax return this year was ONE FUCKING DOLLAR.
>>73723930
Says scripture, which you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit your standard of what you believe the faith to be. That's what is logically pathetic here. You're the one that needs to give up and submit to God.
>>73724033
No, but being able to enforce your ownership of it it effectively makes. Even animals understand this concept. Tigers require 15 square miles of territory. To keep it, they need to defend it from others. They don't fucking say "oh well that land was taken through violent appropriation therefore your immoral!". And if enforcement does not make ownership, what does? Your "natural rights" that don't actually exist?
>>73723974
>unsupported in both modern and ancient Christianity
St. Peter said to honor the king
>when the Christian Church was first wielded as an instrument of the state by Constantine
And the Church has since canonized St. Constantine as equal to the apostles and has canonized rulers as recent as Nicholas II
>>73724254
Says God nowhere. The judges of old had their laws and traditions too - didn't make them any less bullshit.
No one is more in defiance of God than the man who insists his belief is right and no other belief is *INCONTROVERTIBLY* because other people tell him its so. That's simultaneously absolutely pathetic and arrogant. Have fun taking Jamal's dick to your anus you faggot fucker.
>>73724371
No, I don't think so.
If you kill me and take my stuff you don't own it, no matter how much you'd like to.
>>73724073
I don't know about every little sect, but basically from the very beginning with Jesus there was to be no more sacrifices, no more body sacraments, basically nothing physical was required anymore. The only thing Jesus said God demanded was spiritual devotion, nothing material.
Of course he did have a shitload to say about how bad it was to be rich and love money and material goods, but that was part of the spiritual lesson, akin to almost every other religion's teaching of piety through moderation and/or poverty.
>>73709149
Are you using passages in the bible to prove that the state should get it's authority from the bible? You need to read up on philosophy, that is faulty thinking.
>>73724538
>Says God nowhere
Mt 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Mt 18:17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
>>73722596
Then we both agree that it's important to do our best to try and understand the world we live in, because there is something at stake. A person's critical thinking skills are directly tied to their ability to avoid making mistakes or being scammed. Accepting an idea uncritically can end being a fatal mistake, and everyone wants to avoid danger, so don't say that beliefs are just a matter of taste. Choosing an ice cream flavor is a matter of taste but choosing to believe that there isn't a tiger in the woods can come back to bite you in the ass. You can "objectively" measure the negative consequences of having poor critical thinking skills because it makes you a bad survivor. If you choose to believe there isn't a God and there is one you lose out on heavenly reward or risk going to hell.
>>73724680
But what is *existentially* not God's? God is the Creator of all things under basic Christian theology. So I'm wondering what you think a Christian holds *isn't* God's.
>>73724597
Yeah I do. Why don't I? I have sole control over it. All property is is something that you have exclusive use of.
>Soc. Then consider the matter in this way: Imagine that I am about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name which you like), and the laws and the government come and interrogate me: "Tell us, Socrates," they say; "what are you about? are you going by an act of yours to overturn us- the laws and the whole State, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals?" What will be our answer, Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be carried out; and we might reply, "Yes; but the State has injured us and given an unjust sentence." Suppose I say that?
>And if I were to express astonishment at their saying this, the law would probably add: "Answer, Socrates, instead of opening your eyes: you are in the habit of asking and answering questions. Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?" None, I should reply. "Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?" Right, I should reply. "Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you?
Honor the king? Duh of course we do that. While he's king. While our authorities govern over us we'll render unto them what is theirs. Money is government property and we respect property.
>>73724769
>>73683869
18:17 applies to anyone who follows Christ. Whatever we do we'll see reflection of in our judgment before God in heaven, both our good and our evil.
But *OF COURSE* only *YOUR* interpretation is correct. Cuz it just is lol xD
>>73709149
>>73724786
Yeah, I agree with most of that. But not everyone wants to avoid danger, and beliefs are still simply a matter of taste. To proof from anecdote, I'm quite willing to sacrifice my life at any moment for anyone else really. And that's because I have beliefs which would compel me to do so. And why do I hold those beliefs? *Because I like them*.
>>73725014
Because God's got my back, and will judge both you and I for our sin and for our goodness. It's sort of like the notion of how the police certainly don't hold you own the stuff you stole from me after you kill me and take it, and will seek to take it back, only it's *inevitable*, *inescapable*, and *actually* matters.
>>73725190
And what of the Church that Christ speaks of? "Tell it to the Church" tell it to whom, if not the bishops, deacons, and presbyters that are appointed by the Apostles?
>>73724529
>St. Peter said to honor the king
Right, that you could honor temporal authority without conflicting with spiritual authority.
> the Church has since canonized St. Constantine ... and Nicholas II
Like I said, between Constantine and the 20th century the Church was wielded by the state and of course the Church would then canonize rulers. Nicholas and his family were canonized by the Orthodox Church as passion-bearers, which is sort of like martyrs and not at all like being a defender or crusader of the Church like traditionally canonized rulers were.
Now my thesis here is *very* generalized, but it is objectively clear that the Church went from endorsing, canonizing, and being sponsored by most kings in Europe to now being more or less politically independent (possible gray areas in ww2, but that was geopolitically a difficult situation for every neutral country).
>>73717584
>Nice meme bro. "Reality". Top kek.
Well meme'd likewise, good sir.
>I'm commanded to preach against sin - I don't care what you do to me, but if something is a sin I'm gonna call it a sin until you bury me. And then I'm going to call it sin some more.
That's ok, but that doesn't change the fact of your position in society and whether or not you own the land under your feet.
On a different note, why are name and tripfags always such retards? You clearly come from reddit looking at your formatting here: >>73717390
>>73709457
Ooooor Paul made up a bunch of shit and then wrote it down, and people believed him because the catholic church wanted a roman in the bible.
>>73725518
Yeah, God totally has your back on the subject of the state not owning everything by default. Wait, what was that Jesus said? "Render unto Caeser what is Caser's..."
The police are "the Tigers". The police, liek I just said, enforce property rights. Its not "natural".
>>73725557
>it is objectively clear that the Church went from endorsing, canonizing, and being sponsored by most kings in Europe to now being more or less politically independent
This isn't the ideal though, so if that is the truth, it's an unfortunate one.
>>73725549
Christ speaks of ἐkkλησίᾳ· in different contexts throughout the NT. In that one, he's referencing what people are very much used to, which is the community of believers - at the time that was in reference to the Jews, though Christ probably meant it in regard to the Christians that would come after Him.
>>73725682
>That's ok, but that doesn't change the fact of your position in society and whether or not you own the land under your feet.
Yeah. It also doesn't make you any less wrong ;)
>>73724832
If you are a solipsist, what is existentially not yours?
Not everything needs to be "owned" by something or labelled as such.
>>73725870
But the Jews had temples and synagogues so if you're implying that Jesus was advocating a type of free agency Christianity where you "tell it to the community" instead of the Church you're wrong again.
>>73725968
I'm not a solipsist. I'm a Christian. Those beliefs are mutually exclusive. I stick to operating axioms, though I utilize solipsistic reductionism to criticize other people - and myself - to bring them in line with logic and intellectual honesty. There's not much more I hate than dogmatism, which is why I rant against Catholics constantly.
>>73726149
Are you a prottie?
>>73726145
>ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Learn. Greek.
We shorten it to "church" you dolt.
>>73726235
Yes.
>Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
>>73726235
If you read the thread he rejects most of the NT and the teachings of St. Paul and the Church. He's not just a prot he's a prot of the worst order.
>>73726330
>Ephesians
>>73725957
>It also doesn't make you any less wrong ;)
>;)
How am I wrong? Maybe you can try to make your 88th post one that's worth reading.
>>73716950
not him, but since I have a custom 4chan Downloader using the json api, I made a function that fetches posts who has images just so I can reply to them with "MODS MODS" in teen threads on /b/
the functions name is "shitpost" btw
>>73726431
You insist someone else owns the land beneath my feet, but you can't even tell me what ownership is. If you don't even know what you're saying, you can't possibly be right, because words without meaning are, in fact, meaningless. A meaningless proposition can be neither true nor false.
>>73726287
And you think a Church is an assembly with no elders, bishops, deacons, presbyters as outlined in Acts of the Apostles. An assemply with no authority. Doesn't sound like any "Church" I've ever seen.
>>73725798
>This isn't the ideal though
Really? So you think the temporal kings and spiritual kings should mix? Even though Jesus was pretty much against it? Even though pragmatically it ends up corrupting the foundations of all institutions involved?
>>73726590
It doesn't need those, no. I've been a part of plenty of congregations with no one "in charge". Pretty fucking easy, actually, to treat other people with equal consideration and respect.
>>73726587
>You insist someone else owns the land beneath my feet, but you can't even tell me what ownership is.
We were never talking about what ownership means, so you basing the conclusion of me being wrong on that is pretty disingenuous.
>A meaningless proposition can be neither true nor false.
Yet you came to the conclusion that I'm wrong.
Just saying, reddit...maybe don't be so obvious next time.
>>73726678
The priest-king is the traditional ideal in any ancient culture, such as Melchezidek or the Egyptian Pharaohs. There's no reason why a king shouldn't come from the priest class.
>>73726145
no hes right on that one
>>73725369
>I'm quite willing to sacrifice my life at any moment for anyone else really
That's admirable but you wouldn't want to waste your life for no reason, such as because you had the wrong idea about someone being in danger. It's still in your best interest to try and see reality as clearly as you can in order to prevent making mistakes. It's more accurate to say that what drives people to try and understand reality is a general desire to "be right". Argumentative people sometimes get shit for "wanting to be right" too much, but wanting to be right is a good instinct like wanting to avoid pain. Being wrong feels instinctively wrong like your mind is being violated by untruth. It can be hard to even hold and entertain ideas you disagree with, let alone accept them. This feeling is arbitrary since I could've been born with a brain that doesn't feel it, but it's also useful so I'll accept it.
>>73726958
Since hardly a soul in the history of philosophy, if *anyone*, has ever established a coherent, unambiguous theory of ownership, I'm pretty sure I'm alright in assuming you haven't done so.
Yeah - you believe you're right despite spouting meaninglessness. Which means you're wrong in that belief - you've said nothing right whatsoever.
>>73726731
>I've been a part of plenty of congregations with no one "in charge".
But that's not a church, and you're not a part of the Church. You've been a part of gatherings of heretics that sing songs and read scripture, presumably. Whether you're all nice to each other or not is highly irrelevant.
