Question for believers: Are we within God's jurisdiction?

[james bond]

The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:

Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).

Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?

Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?

A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.

An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.

It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.

It's that material-spiritual thing bothering you again eh? I thought you meant objective moral law, so voted God. Objective moral law is not lying in order to put someone you don't like on this forum in jail for example. It's a moral law, but it is used as is basis for man's subjective laws. To violate God's law is a sin. To violate government's law is a crime. You didn't mention the law of relativism that we have today in which there is no objective truth, and thus, no right from wrong. That one's a doozy.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:

Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).

Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?

Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?

A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.

An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.

It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.

It's that material-spiritual thing bothering you again eh? I thought you meant objective moral law, so voted God. Objective moral law is not lying in order to put someone you don't like on this forum in jail for example. It's a moral law, but it is used as is basis for man's subjective laws. To violate God's law is a sin. To violate government's law is a crime. You didn't mention the law of relativism that we have today in which there is no objective truth, and thus, no right from wrong. That one's a doozy.

The argument does not change, regardless of how you define "God's law", and natural moral law will work just fine for this purpose. It is not the basis for man's law, however, despite claims to that effect. Man's law claims supremacy over God's law. It does not permit for individual choice as to when you will obey and when you will not, even if it conflicts with God's law. If it did, it would no longer be law, but mere suggestion. There is only one primary place where authority can reside - it either resides in man's law, or God's. A man cannot have two masters.

A further exploration of this topic can be found here: CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality

 

[james bond]

The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:

Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).

Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?

Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?

A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.

An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.

It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.

It's that material-spiritual thing bothering you again eh? I thought you meant objective moral law, so voted God. Objective moral law is not lying in order to put someone you don't like on this forum in jail for example. It's a moral law, but it is used as is basis for man's subjective laws. To violate God's law is a sin. To violate government's law is a crime. You didn't mention the law of relativism that we have today in which there is no objective truth, and thus, no right from wrong. That one's a doozy.

The argument does not change, regardless of how you define "God's law", and natural moral law will work just fine for this purpose. It is not the basis for man's law, however, despite claims to that effect. Man's law claims supremacy over God's law. It does not permit for individual choice as to when you will obey and when you will not, even if it conflicts with God's law. If it did, it would no longer be law, but mere suggestion. There is only one primary place where authority can reside - it either resides in man's law, or God's. A man cannot have two masters.

A further exploration of this topic can be found here: CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality

I don't know where you live, but God and the Bible was the basis for our laws in the USA.

 

[ding]

Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected. According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

Protection of natural law rights is not exclusive to government. It’s moral for any person to do that, and so by extension, any organization can be delegated the right to do that.

It’s important to understand that the only thing government adds is an exemption from morality - the “right” to do things no individual has a right to do. And what do we call something that no individual has a right to do? We call it wrong, immoral. Remove this license to act immorally, and what’s left is not government.

You do not have to police people personally, but I phrase my questions from that perspective to make clear that if you don’t have a right to do something, government doesn’t either; they are just people, and all people have the same rights. We can have a full-time protection and investigation agency, but they cannot have rights that individuals don’t have; or they are - by definition - an immoral institution.

If a government was funded morally, it would have to be funded voluntarily; as individuals do not have the natural law right to coerce people into giving them money. If was to protect, it could only act in defense of rights, not act as an authority over people; as no individual is an authority over anyone else.

So it could not tax, not draft, not limit movement or benign behavior in public spaces, not make any law which differs from natural law. Would you still call this organization “government” when it does not govern? When it exists only as an extension of individual rights and makes no claim to authority?

Men are not angels, which is precisely why it’s insane to create a seat of immense power, then choose some from among the imperfect throng to sit upon it. All this does is magnify man’s immorality (see all of history). A free society at least keeps the playing field level. Show me Stalin, Hitler, Mao, without governmental authority, and I’ll show you three misguided loudmouths with more bullets in their chests than murders under their belts.

See post #217

Yes, I read that. How does that refute what I said?

If rights are unalienable, people don't have the option to "give up the right to do everything they want in exchange for security", not even for themselves. And even if you could give up your own, you clearly have no right to force me to do so merely because I was born within your midst. Not to mention the idea of giving up rights in order to protect them is self-contradictory.

The terminology "do everything they want" is fishy here as well. Natural law doesn't give you the right to do everything, but merely everything that does not infringe upon the rights of others. The use of this phrase groups immoral action with moral action in a covert attempt to bridge the idea of giving up murdering and stealing with benign actions like crossing a border or walking around naked. It's a ploy to gain agreement on the former and thereby imply agreement on the latter. This kind of dishonesty indicates a knowledge that the argument is fundamentally flawed.

There is no problem as long as government writes just laws. What exactly do you find unjust in what the government does? Do you believe limiting access to our country to lawful aliens is an unjust law?

What rights are we giving up?