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

[forkup]

... Women to this day can not become priests. ...

I regret this very much. I was my whole life fighting for women. Nevertheless I see more and more indicators why this is not as trivial as the most people seem to think today. If I imagine for example a Nazi-army full of women, then I feel not very comfortable on my own. How to fight against such an army? No chance! Fortunately it never was in this way. Sure such a thought seems not to be very real - but I feel much more comfortable if women are not fighting soldiers. Perhaps it's also not bad if they are not priests. For sure I do not like to misuse women now suddenly as a final contingent of fighters for the Christian faith. Perhaps the holy catholic church will need soon no priests any longer at all. We are able to change our traditions and our life-style - but we are also able to die. We will see. Perhaps our women will be able to become priests too, why not? Is anyone in hurry to find the best of all possible solutions for this problem?

Do you realize that with this post, you not only acknowledge that the Bible isn't the source of equality you say it is. But that you realize this and choose to follow the principles of humanism when it really comes down to it?

A1="to be a reasonable human being"
A2="to speak English"
=> A1 ∩ A2 = {}

Give me the oldest concrete text which you know for the first equal rights you ever heard from.

Solon - Wikipedia
Greek Lawmaker who first invented Democracy. It predates Christianity by 600 years and considers equal rights as only applicable to FREE males,just like the bible does. Plato and Socrates talked about it to. A better question is, how is this relevant to anything we are discussing?

Read again, answer again. I had not finished my words while you had answered with this very pale words here. My perception of time is not compatible with the perception of time in the English speaking world.

I read your edited text, my answer is still fully applicable. Can you give me the relevance please?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Humanism, science. On the other hand religion advocates inequality.

You don't have any idea what you are speaking about. The only historical source for equal rights is the bible. There is no other source. Without Jews and Christians the world where we live in is unthinkable, is even unimaginable.

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

To my mind, it's quite obvious that Jesus felt no obligation toward government or the religious institutions of his day, and no respect for the actions of bankers and their monetary system. It is not enough to say, "Well, we are obliged to follow man's law if it does not directly contradict God's law." If you acknowledge governmental law as an authority then you don't get to pick and choose, even if it contradicts your morality. The law itself makes no provision for cherry-picking, nor does valid logic. If you retain the right to pick and choose based upon your commitment to God's law, then you definitively do not acknowledge government's claim to authority. That doesn't mean you don't coincidentally obey the law, or that you can't defer to law as a kindness (or an act of self-preservation) in matters where it doesn't contradict God's law; but it does mean that you are making the decisions (informed by God's law), and so do not feel bound by governmental authority. I don't see how this can possibly be denied...

Now, if you assert your natural right to make this choice, should you not afford others the same liberty? Should others not be permitted to choose for themselves to shake off governmental authority in favor of their own morality? If you do not acknowledge government's valid claim to authority over you, why would you support it as a valid authority over me? Why would you cast your vote, effectually saying, "I condone this person's right to make law which others are obliged to obey"? To subject your friends, family and neighbors to a false authority that you don't acknowledge yourself is unfair, unjust, and immoral. How you justify this action?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Excellent. Yes, I agree with all you said except the historical note about early law in this country. I agree that natural law was the basis for those laws (in the same way a Hollywood film may be based upon a true story), but I question the success of the attempt, along similar lines as Lysander Spooner.

I am not familiar with the term “normalization of deviance”, but at first glance I suppose it to be what we see in the courts, whereby deviations from the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution establish precedence for future deviations, and create new platform from which to spring even further away from that document’s original intent. Is this in the ballpark?

I don't have the time to spare to watch this but through inspection the Constitution is powerless to stop a corrupt government from enacting unjust laws if there is a systemic breakdown of the checks and balances.

Normalization of deviance is when a standard is lowered and the deviation from the higher standard is normalized. The erosion of liberty and freedom is an incremental process.

I understand. The Spooner audiobook is somewhat dry, and written in the style of its day, but it outlines an irrefutable case for the invalidity of the Constitution, in my opinion. I have yet to hear valid refutations, in any case.

The problem with "checks and balances" is that they are all on one side of the table. It's a system of government governing itself. The only really check to government is an armed population with a revolutionary spirit, which is quite a drastic check, but works quite well. Even now in the U.S., though the spirit is largely subdued, the arms remain, and I submit that it's the only thing keeping this ambitious, aggressive government from racing headlong into tyranny. Now, there may be an economic check in the sense that it's more profitable to have a system of free-range debt slavery than one of violent domination, which is a dubious hope, but worthy of consideration.

A breakdown in governmental checks and balances is not an unfortunate happenstance, but an inevitability; because it runs counter to the motivations of ambitious power-mongers. The Constitution has failed because it must fail. Whenever you create a seat of power, gangsters, dominators, and other psychopaths will be first in line to sit upon it. The problem is that most people have a moral compass, and they find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who don't. They keep believing that if we can just get the right people into these positions, everything will be OK. But that can never be, because immoral, deceptive scoundrels will edge those people out every time. It's like hoping for a benevolent dictatorship. Freedom and justice can never be served by establishing an institution inherently defined by violent coercion and an inequality of rights.

I'm not quite there yet. Government is a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. The problem is not the government per se. The problem is with the people themselves. Not to worry though everything balances out in the end.

The checks are still in place and are still working. We the people are the last check but I doubt it will ever get to that because we the people will be humbled well before then.

You sound reluctantly resigned to the fact that government will lead us to a disastrous end, and though you don’t appear to like it, you see us trapped by necessity. If this is so, that necessity damn well better be ironclad.

I don’t believe that it is. I want to draw a distinction between organization and government. We can have organization without government. Government is the “right” to rule. The only thing differentiating it from a mafia or foreign invader is that people believe it is their duty to obey. They believe their claim to power to be legitimate.

This is helped along by the illusion of the democratic process. It’s amazing how much stock people place in voting, when its child’s play for wealthy, powerful misanthropes to hijack this process. Plus you vote every 2-4 years and have no control in-between. How this satisfies, I have no idea, but when the culture dissuades a recognition of individual self-ownership, I suppose it’s not surprising.

Almost everything is run on a voluntary basis, or has private, voluntary alternatives. Business, research and technology, charity, protection, education... what is that key factor that government brings to the table that you deem so incredibly necessary that it justifies the infringements on personal liberties and hundreds of millions of bloody bodies that it’s wracked up throughout history?

All government does is steal people’s money and redistribute it (after taking a huge amount off the top to pay for politician’s lifestyles, and service the debt to big bankers, and a million other things that don’t benefit the people). They produce nothing, create nothing. They punish bad guys, but we can do that. There are far fewer bad guys than people suppose. Mostly they just get in the way with their prohibitive regulations and notorious inefficiency and wastefulness.

What do you suppose they’re doing that’s so essential?

Not really. I'm resigned that humanity will be unable to break the cycle that has existed since the beginning of humanity.

This is speculative (and dubious, as tribal societies didn't have government, exactly). If you truly believe that government is an evil, should you not at least attempt to break the chains of its bondage while hope remains? You do not know that it can't be done, and this is no time to sit idly by while miscreants take over the world, based upon an unsure opinion.

At the very least, you can be the change you wish to see in the world, and cease your support in whatever way possible. Even just not voting and offering this alternative opinion in conversations would have SOME small effect. Believe me, there's a big difference in people's perception between one person saying something, and two people saying it.

But you have claimed it is a "necessary" evil, despite not making a case for this position by addressing my argument to the contrary (which I find surprising - your short reply suggests perhaps you were too busy, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this necessity). So do you support government or not?

I look to the abolition of slavery for hope. I understand the Civil War and Lincoln's selfish motives, but the cultural mindset was changing, and the small abolitionist movement made great strides toward opening people's eyes. Deeply ingrained institutions CAN be changed. Many things once thought normal and essential are now viewed as archaic and insane. If I could somehow go on record for progeny's viewing, I would assert that the notion of government WILL eventually be viewed in this very same way, be it 50 years from now, or 1,000.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Interesting paradox Brian

That morality has to hail from celestial sources vs. terrestrial has been debated since sun worshippers

But that's the hook you see....

Some chief , holy see , or whatever 'authority' interprets for the tribe, they pitch a virgin in a volcano, and it's all good

~S~

In your logic the Supreme Court of the USA threw Norma McCorvey alias Jane Roe in a volcano and it's all good that every year a million US-Americans have to die because of this.

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

 

[forkup]

Interesting paradox Brian

That morality has to hail from celestial sources vs. terrestrial has been debated since sun worshippers

But that's the hook you see....

Some chief , holy see , or whatever 'authority' interprets for the tribe, they pitch a virgin in a volcano, and it's all good

~S~

In your logic the Supreme Court of the USA threw Norma McCorvey alias Jane Roe in a volcano and it's all good that every year a million US-Americans have to die because of this.

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

 

[sparky]

Interesting paradox Brian

That morality has to hail from celestial sources vs. terrestrial has been debated since sun worshippers

But that's the hook you see....

Some chief , holy see , or whatever 'authority' interprets for the tribe, they pitch a virgin in a volcano, and it's all good

~S~

In your logic the Supreme Court of the USA threw Norma McCorvey alias Jane Roe in a volcano and it's all good that every year a million US-Americans have to die because of this.

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

the 'law' crucified the son of God

So in my view, the 'law' IE- authority, whatever , has zero jurisdiction imposing anything out of the bible, or whatever other celestial document they may choose to foist upon us

and that was exactly the jist our FF's sought to impart, after they departed the theocratic bullsh*t England so proudly insisted on

~S~

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Interesting paradox Brian

That morality has to hail from celestial sources vs. terrestrial has been debated since sun worshippers

But that's the hook you see....

Some chief , holy see , or whatever 'authority' interprets for the tribe, they pitch a virgin in a volcano, and it's all good

~S~

In your logic the Supreme Court of the USA threw Norma McCorvey alias Jane Roe in a volcano and it's all good that every year a million US-Americans have to die because of this.

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

That’s ok, even if only allegorical, there is value in exploring the teachings. I admit there is room for interpretation here, as is the nature of the Bible beast, and yours is a fair one. However, I would suggest that given the whole of the account - the totality of His words and actions, as well as the surrounding events - I would hold to him being anti-religion and anti-state, where the former is hollow, and the latter is an invalid mockery of the true authority of God.

The passage does not address the state, as “the Law” refers to the Torah, which you have noted. So as for religion, I interpret his words to mean that he came to actually DO and BE what the religious leaders only claimed to serve through their ostentatious, dogmatic, substitute for true spirituality. He spoke out agaisnt their hypocrisy, and in his own teachings did not prescribe their brand of shallow obedience to ritual.

This distinction is clearly seen today as well, and even many born-again Christians speak out against “religion” and claim steadfast adherence to the teachings of Christ.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Interesting paradox Brian

That morality has to hail from celestial sources vs. terrestrial has been debated since sun worshippers

But that's the hook you see....

Some chief , holy see , or whatever 'authority' interprets for the tribe, they pitch a virgin in a volcano, and it's all good

~S~

In your logic the Supreme Court of the USA threw Norma McCorvey alias Jane Roe in a volcano and it's all good that every year a million US-Americans have to die because of this.

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

the 'law' crucified the son of God

So in my view, the 'law' IE- authority, whatever , has zero jurisdiction imposing anything out of the bible, or whatever other celestial document they may choose to foist upon us

and that was exactly the jist our FF's sought to impart, after they departed the theocratic bullsh*t England so proudly insisted on

~S~

It’s also worthy of note that not only was it government that killed Jesus, aided by religious leaders, but that the men who actually performed the dark work were order-followers and law enforcers; the Roman equivilent of police and/or military. This is the recipe for evil in our world: False authority (religion/government) + blind obedience = atrocities against all that is good and righteous. The allegorical wisdom of the scriptures should not be casually dismissed, even by atheists.

 

[zaangalewa]

I regret this very much. I was my whole life fighting for women. Nevertheless I see more and more indicators why this is not as trivial as the most people seem to think today. If I imagine for example a Nazi-army full of women, then I feel not very comfortable on my own. How to fight against such an army? No chance! Fortunately it never was in this way. Sure such a thought seems not to be very real - but I feel much more comfortable if women are not fighting soldiers. Perhaps it's also not bad if they are not priests. For sure I do not like to misuse women now suddenly as a final contingent of fighters for the Christian faith. Perhaps the holy catholic church will need soon no priests any longer at all. We are able to change our traditions and our life-style - but we are also able to die. We will see. Perhaps our women will be able to become priests too, why not? Is anyone in hurry to find the best of all possible solutions for this problem?

Do you realize that with this post, you not only acknowledge that the Bible isn't the source of equality you say it is. But that you realize this and choose to follow the principles of humanism when it really comes down to it?

A1="to be a reasonable human being"
A2="to speak English"
=> A1 ∩ A2 = {}

Give me the oldest concrete text which you know for the first equal rights you ever heard from.

Solon - Wikipedia
Greek Lawmaker who first invented Democracy. It predates Christianity by 600 years and considers equal rights as only applicable to FREE males,just like the bible does. Plato and Socrates talked about it to. A better question is, how is this relevant to anything we are discussing?

Read again, answer again. I had not finished my words while you had answered with this very pale words here. My perception of time is not compatible with the perception of time in the English speaking world.

So you mean Germans have a different perception of time?

Okay. You do not like to understand what I say. You know from the Greeks because of the Greek religion "Christendom" and the Renaissance the catholic church had caused. And the democracy in Athens was not a democracy with "equal rights" nor a democracy where justice was important. Only the free men of Athens were able to vote. Not so children, women or slaves. Court decisions for example were more a kind of public amusement than to try to find justice. Whatever.

The oldest source for the emancipation of women is Nefertiti - the wife of the monotheistic Pharao Echnaton. The oldest source of equal rights between men and women is the bible. Most people - completely independent what form of culture - know that a woman should obey her husband. What the most people do not know is it that in the the bible is written too, that a man should obey his wife. The reason why most men man ignore this shows the will of men to dominate women. This causes by the way also problems in context with emancipation today. Emancipation is today often only a way how to destroy women and to make a new kind of men out of them. Real emancipation is still in the beginning. This process needs much more time than the most human beings are able to imagine. Specially it is important for women to find their own way which they love to live - independent from any opinion of any man - also independent from my opinion - except I should say something, what women like to think about. Their decision. But every woman should know, that her husband has 'to obey' her in the same way how she has 'to obey' him too. That's the Christian lifestyle since about 2000 years.

 

[forkup]

Do you realize that with this post, you not only acknowledge that the Bible isn't the source of equality you say it is. But that you realize this and choose to follow the principles of humanism when it really comes down to it?

A1="to be a reasonable human being"
A2="to speak English"
=> A1 ∩ A2 = {}

Give me the oldest concrete text which you know for the first equal rights you ever heard from.

Solon - Wikipedia
Greek Lawmaker who first invented Democracy. It predates Christianity by 600 years and considers equal rights as only applicable to FREE males,just like the bible does. Plato and Socrates talked about it to. A better question is, how is this relevant to anything we are discussing?

Read again, answer again. I had not finished my words while you had answered with this very pale words here. My perception of time is not compatible with the perception of time in the English speaking world.

So you mean Germans have a different perception of time?

Okay. You do not like to understand what I say. You know from the Greeks because of the Greek religion "Christendom" and the Renaissance the catholic church had caused. And the democracy in Athens was not a democracy with "equal rights" nor a democracy where justice was important. Only the free men of Athens were able to vote. Not so children, women or slaves. Whatever.

The oldest source for the emancipation of women is Nefertiti - the wife of monotheistic Pharao Echnaton. The oldest source of equal rights between men and women is the bible. Most people - completely independent what form of culture - know that a woman should obey her husband. What the most people do not know is it that in the the bible is written too, that a man should obey his wife. The reason why most men man ignore this shows the will of men to dominate women. This causes by the way also problems in context with emancipation today. Emancipation is today often only a way how to destroy women and to make a new kind of men out of them. Real emancipation is still in the beginning. This process needs much more time than the most human beings are able to imagine.

Equality to you is woman have rights just not ALL the rights? Look up the definition of equality.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV / 966 helpful votes
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ESV / 322 helpful votes
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 11:5 ESV / 282 helpful votes
But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV / 273 helpful votes
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ...
What Does the Bible Say About Women?
You will find passages that calls on men to love your wife and some passages that say that God loves woman even. But saying that they were in ANY way equal to men shows that you haven't read the Bible or just read the parts you like. There are plenty of NON religious Greek sources. DIRECT sources even they had writing.

 

[forkup]

In your logic the Supreme Court of the USA threw Norma McCorvey alias Jane Roe in a volcano and it's all good that every year a million US-Americans have to die because of this.

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

the 'law' crucified the son of God

So in my view, the 'law' IE- authority, whatever , has zero jurisdiction imposing anything out of the bible, or whatever other celestial document they may choose to foist upon us

and that was exactly the jist our FF's sought to impart, after they departed the theocratic bullsh*t England so proudly insisted on

~S~

It’s also worthy of note that not only was it government that killed Jesus, aided by religious leaders, but that the men who actually performed the dark work were order-followers and law enforcers; the Roman equivilent of police and/or military. This is the recipe for evil in our world: False authority (religion/government) + blind obedience = atrocities against all that is good and righteous. The allegorical wisdom of the scriptures should not be casually dismissed, even by atheists.

There's allegorical wisdom in Aesop's fables, stories my parents told me and even Star Trek. I don't think any of them should be taken as a bases for laws. In fact wouldn't star trek be the better bases since at least the good guys in Star Trek don't on occasion come out with stuff that is simply immoral. If you admit that the Bible is open to interpretation wouldn't it be fair to say that Humanism is a better bases?

 

[zaangalewa]

A1="to be a reasonable human being"
A2="to speak English"
=> A1 ∩ A2 = {}

Give me the oldest concrete text which you know for the first equal rights you ever heard from.

Solon - Wikipedia
Greek Lawmaker who first invented Democracy. It predates Christianity by 600 years and considers equal rights as only applicable to FREE males,just like the bible does. Plato and Socrates talked about it to. A better question is, how is this relevant to anything we are discussing?

Read again, answer again. I had not finished my words while you had answered with this very pale words here. My perception of time is not compatible with the perception of time in the English speaking world.

So you mean Germans have a different perception of time?

Okay. You do not like to understand what I say. You know from the Greeks because of the Greek religion "Christendom" and the Renaissance the catholic church had caused. And the democracy in Athens was not a democracy with "equal rights" nor a democracy where justice was important. Only the free men of Athens were able to vote. Not so children, women or slaves. Whatever.

The oldest source for the emancipation of women is Nefertiti - the wife of monotheistic Pharao Echnaton. The oldest source of equal rights between men and women is the bible. Most people - completely independent what form of culture - know that a woman should obey her husband. What the most people do not know is it that in the the bible is written too, that a man should obey his wife. The reason why most men man ignore this shows the will of men to dominate women. This causes by the way also problems in context with emancipation today. Emancipation is today often only a way how to destroy women and to make a new kind of men out of them. Real emancipation is still in the beginning. This process needs much more time than the most human beings are able to imagine.

Equality to you is woman have rights just not ALL the rights? Look up the definition of equality.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV / 966 helpful votes
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ESV / 322 helpful votes
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 11:5 ESV / 282 helpful votes
But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV / 273 helpful votes
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ...
What Does the Bible Say About Women?
You will find passages that calls on men to love your wife and some passages that say that God loves woman even. But saying that they were in ANY way equal to men shows that you haven't read the Bible or just read the parts you like. There are plenty of NON religious Greek sources. DIRECT sources even they had writing.

Nothing what I would say now would convince you from anything. You could even manifest your prejudices. So bye bye.

 

[forkup]

Solon - Wikipedia
Greek Lawmaker who first invented Democracy. It predates Christianity by 600 years and considers equal rights as only applicable to FREE males,just like the bible does. Plato and Socrates talked about it to. A better question is, how is this relevant to anything we are discussing?

Read again, answer again. I had not finished my words while you had answered with this very pale words here. My perception of time is not compatible with the perception of time in the English speaking world.

So you mean Germans have a different perception of time?

Okay. You do not like to understand what I say. You know from the Greeks because of the Greek religion "Christendom" and the Renaissance the catholic church had caused. And the democracy in Athens was not a democracy with "equal rights" nor a democracy where justice was important. Only the free men of Athens were able to vote. Not so children, women or slaves. Whatever.

The oldest source for the emancipation of women is Nefertiti - the wife of monotheistic Pharao Echnaton. The oldest source of equal rights between men and women is the bible. Most people - completely independent what form of culture - know that a woman should obey her husband. What the most people do not know is it that in the the bible is written too, that a man should obey his wife. The reason why most men man ignore this shows the will of men to dominate women. This causes by the way also problems in context with emancipation today. Emancipation is today often only a way how to destroy women and to make a new kind of men out of them. Real emancipation is still in the beginning. This process needs much more time than the most human beings are able to imagine.

Equality to you is woman have rights just not ALL the rights? Look up the definition of equality.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV / 966 helpful votes
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ESV / 322 helpful votes
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 11:5 ESV / 282 helpful votes
But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV / 273 helpful votes
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ...
What Does the Bible Say About Women?
You will find passages that calls on men to love your wife and some passages that say that God loves woman even. But saying that they were in ANY way equal to men shows that you haven't read the Bible or just read the parts you like. There are plenty of NON religious Greek sources. DIRECT sources even they had writing.

Nothing what I would say now would convince you from anything. You could even manifest your prejudices. So bye bye.

I can source my claims (the Bible), you can't. If you want to convince someone of something but you can't produce proof, even more the person who you are trying to convince uses the source you profess to use, then I venture the problem isn't my prejudice but rather your faulty information.

 

[zaangalewa]

Read again, answer again. I had not finished my words while you had answered with this very pale words here. My perception of time is not compatible with the perception of time in the English speaking world.

So you mean Germans have a different perception of time?

Okay. You do not like to understand what I say. You know from the Greeks because of the Greek religion "Christendom" and the Renaissance the catholic church had caused. And the democracy in Athens was not a democracy with "equal rights" nor a democracy where justice was important. Only the free men of Athens were able to vote. Not so children, women or slaves. Whatever.

The oldest source for the emancipation of women is Nefertiti - the wife of monotheistic Pharao Echnaton. The oldest source of equal rights between men and women is the bible. Most people - completely independent what form of culture - know that a woman should obey her husband. What the most people do not know is it that in the the bible is written too, that a man should obey his wife. The reason why most men man ignore this shows the will of men to dominate women. This causes by the way also problems in context with emancipation today. Emancipation is today often only a way how to destroy women and to make a new kind of men out of them. Real emancipation is still in the beginning. This process needs much more time than the most human beings are able to imagine.

Equality to you is woman have rights just not ALL the rights? Look up the definition of equality.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV / 966 helpful votes
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ESV / 322 helpful votes
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 11:5 ESV / 282 helpful votes
But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV / 273 helpful votes
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ...
What Does the Bible Say About Women?
You will find passages that calls on men to love your wife and some passages that say that God loves woman even. But saying that they were in ANY way equal to men shows that you haven't read the Bible or just read the parts you like. There are plenty of NON religious Greek sources. DIRECT sources even they had writing.

Nothing what I would say now would convince you from anything. You could even manifest your prejudices. So bye bye.

I can source my claims (the Bible), you can't. If you want to convince someone of something but you can't produce proof, even more the person who you are trying to convince uses the source you profess to use, then I venture the problem isn't my prejudice but rather your faulty information.

It is for me personally totally unimportant what you or anyone else in the world is thinking. I told you something - you decided to ignore it. That's okay.

 

[sparky]

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

the 'law' crucified the son of God

So in my view, the 'law' IE- authority, whatever , has zero jurisdiction imposing anything out of the bible, or whatever other celestial document they may choose to foist upon us

and that was exactly the jist our FF's sought to impart, after they departed the theocratic bullsh*t England so proudly insisted on

~S~

It’s also worthy of note that not only was it government that killed Jesus, aided by religious leaders, but that the men who actually performed the dark work were order-followers and law enforcers; the Roman equivilent of police and/or military. This is the recipe for evil in our world: False authority (religion/government) + blind obedience = atrocities against all that is good and righteous. The allegorical wisdom of the scriptures should not be casually dismissed, even by atheists.

There's allegorical wisdom in Aesop's fables, stories my parents told me and even Star Trek. I don't think any of them should be taken as a bases for laws. In fact wouldn't star trek be the better bases since at least the good guys in Star Trek don't on occasion come out with stuff that is simply immoral. If you admit that the Bible is open to interpretation wouldn't it be fair to say that Humanism is a better bases?

Allegorical Interpretation indeed forkup.

and Gene Roddenberry was a master writer ,thrusting such issues during the turmoil of the 60's to living room tv sci fi

remember this one?>>>



~S~

 

[ding]

I don't have the time to spare to watch this but through inspection the Constitution is powerless to stop a corrupt government from enacting unjust laws if there is a systemic breakdown of the checks and balances.

Normalization of deviance is when a standard is lowered and the deviation from the higher standard is normalized. The erosion of liberty and freedom is an incremental process.

I understand. The Spooner audiobook is somewhat dry, and written in the style of its day, but it outlines an irrefutable case for the invalidity of the Constitution, in my opinion. I have yet to hear valid refutations, in any case.

The problem with "checks and balances" is that they are all on one side of the table. It's a system of government governing itself. The only really check to government is an armed population with a revolutionary spirit, which is quite a drastic check, but works quite well. Even now in the U.S., though the spirit is largely subdued, the arms remain, and I submit that it's the only thing keeping this ambitious, aggressive government from racing headlong into tyranny. Now, there may be an economic check in the sense that it's more profitable to have a system of free-range debt slavery than one of violent domination, which is a dubious hope, but worthy of consideration.

A breakdown in governmental checks and balances is not an unfortunate happenstance, but an inevitability; because it runs counter to the motivations of ambitious power-mongers. The Constitution has failed because it must fail. Whenever you create a seat of power, gangsters, dominators, and other psychopaths will be first in line to sit upon it. The problem is that most people have a moral compass, and they find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who don't. They keep believing that if we can just get the right people into these positions, everything will be OK. But that can never be, because immoral, deceptive scoundrels will edge those people out every time. It's like hoping for a benevolent dictatorship. Freedom and justice can never be served by establishing an institution inherently defined by violent coercion and an inequality of rights.

I'm not quite there yet. Government is a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. The problem is not the government per se. The problem is with the people themselves. Not to worry though everything balances out in the end.

The checks are still in place and are still working. We the people are the last check but I doubt it will ever get to that because we the people will be humbled well before then.

You sound reluctantly resigned to the fact that government will lead us to a disastrous end, and though you don’t appear to like it, you see us trapped by necessity. If this is so, that necessity damn well better be ironclad.

I don’t believe that it is. I want to draw a distinction between organization and government. We can have organization without government. Government is the “right” to rule. The only thing differentiating it from a mafia or foreign invader is that people believe it is their duty to obey. They believe their claim to power to be legitimate.

This is helped along by the illusion of the democratic process. It’s amazing how much stock people place in voting, when its child’s play for wealthy, powerful misanthropes to hijack this process. Plus you vote every 2-4 years and have no control in-between. How this satisfies, I have no idea, but when the culture dissuades a recognition of individual self-ownership, I suppose it’s not surprising.

Almost everything is run on a voluntary basis, or has private, voluntary alternatives. Business, research and technology, charity, protection, education... what is that key factor that government brings to the table that you deem so incredibly necessary that it justifies the infringements on personal liberties and hundreds of millions of bloody bodies that it’s wracked up throughout history?

All government does is steal people’s money and redistribute it (after taking a huge amount off the top to pay for politician’s lifestyles, and service the debt to big bankers, and a million other things that don’t benefit the people). They produce nothing, create nothing. They punish bad guys, but we can do that. There are far fewer bad guys than people suppose. Mostly they just get in the way with their prohibitive regulations and notorious inefficiency and wastefulness.

What do you suppose they’re doing that’s so essential?

Not really. I'm resigned that humanity will be unable to break the cycle that has existed since the beginning of humanity.

This is speculative (and dubious, as tribal societies didn't have government, exactly). If you truly believe that government is an evil, should you not at least attempt to break the chains of its bondage while hope remains? You do not know that it can't be done, and this is no time to sit idly by while miscreants take over the world, based upon an unsure opinion.

At the very least, you can be the change you wish to see in the world, and cease your support in whatever way possible. Even just not voting and offering this alternative opinion in conversations would have SOME small effect. Believe me, there's a big difference in people's perception between one person saying something, and two people saying it.

But you have claimed it is a "necessary" evil, despite not making a case for this position by addressing my argument to the contrary (which I find surprising - your short reply suggests perhaps you were too busy, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this necessity). So do you support government or not?

I look to the abolition of slavery for hope. I understand the Civil War and Lincoln's selfish motives, but the cultural mindset was changing, and the small abolitionist movement made great strides toward opening people's eyes. Deeply ingrained institutions CAN be changed. Many things once thought normal and essential are now viewed as archaic and insane. If I could somehow go on record for progeny's viewing, I would assert that the notion of government WILL eventually be viewed in this very same way, be it 50 years from now, or 1,000.

Not only is the saeculum cycle not speculative the basis for why it happens is logically sound. I am afraid we are going to have to suffer before we change our ways. It is no different at the societal level than it is for the personal level.

By inspection any gathering of men necessitates a hierarchy. Yes, I support a hierarchy because the alternative is anarchy and they always end in totalitarianism.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, were unable to end it at the time of founding but took steps towards it's end. That changed in the 1820's when Democrats took control of the government in the 1820's and reversed the efforts of the Founding Fathers. So how does that knowledge change your beliefs?

Because it fits perfectly with mine.

 

[forkup]

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

the 'law' crucified the son of God

So in my view, the 'law' IE- authority, whatever , has zero jurisdiction imposing anything out of the bible, or whatever other celestial document they may choose to foist upon us

and that was exactly the jist our FF's sought to impart, after they departed the theocratic bullsh*t England so proudly insisted on

~S~

It’s also worthy of note that not only was it government that killed Jesus, aided by religious leaders, but that the men who actually performed the dark work were order-followers and law enforcers; the Roman equivilent of police and/or military. This is the recipe for evil in our world: False authority (religion/government) + blind obedience = atrocities against all that is good and righteous. The allegorical wisdom of the scriptures should not be casually dismissed, even by atheists.

There's allegorical wisdom in Aesop's fables, stories my parents told me and even Star Trek. I don't think any of them should be taken as a bases for laws. In fact wouldn't star trek be the better bases since at least the good guys in Star Trek don't on occasion come out with stuff that is simply immoral. If you admit that the Bible is open to interpretation wouldn't it be fair to say that Humanism is a better bases?

Allegorical Interpretation indeed forkup.

and Gene Roddenberry was a master writer ,thrusting such issues during the turmoil of the 60's to living room tv sci fi

remember this one?>>>



~S~

It makes my point. I just reject the notion that you can claim a book is moral, when you have to disregard entire sections of that book to reach that conclusion.

 

[ding]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

the 'law' crucified the son of God

So in my view, the 'law' IE- authority, whatever , has zero jurisdiction imposing anything out of the bible, or whatever other celestial document they may choose to foist upon us

and that was exactly the jist our FF's sought to impart, after they departed the theocratic bullsh*t England so proudly insisted on

~S~

It’s also worthy of note that not only was it government that killed Jesus, aided by religious leaders, but that the men who actually performed the dark work were order-followers and law enforcers; the Roman equivilent of police and/or military. This is the recipe for evil in our world: False authority (religion/government) + blind obedience = atrocities against all that is good and righteous. The allegorical wisdom of the scriptures should not be casually dismissed, even by atheists.

There's allegorical wisdom in Aesop's fables, stories my parents told me and even Star Trek. I don't think any of them should be taken as a bases for laws. In fact wouldn't star trek be the better bases since at least the good guys in Star Trek don't on occasion come out with stuff that is simply immoral. If you admit that the Bible is open to interpretation wouldn't it be fair to say that Humanism is a better bases?

Allegorical Interpretation indeed forkup.

and Gene Roddenberry was a master writer ,thrusting such issues during the turmoil of the 60's to living room tv sci fi

remember this one?>>>



~S~

It makes my point. I just reject the notion that you can claim a book is moral, when you have to disregard entire sections of that book to reach that conclusion.

Maybe it is your understanding of what it is telling you that is flawed. After all it is effectively a how to book; how to live life and how not to live life.

 

[Likkmee]

... What does the Bible day [=say] about abortion ... ?

"You shall not kill"

Actually, the translation got it wrong with that one. If you translate what it originally said in Hebrew (original language of the Bible), then you would know that the command isn't "thou shalt not kill" but rather "thou shalt not MURDER".

Translating something from Hebrew to Greek, then to Roman and finally English, you lose something about the original meaning.

What is the defining characteristic of “murder”?

It's when the guy wearing the Halloween costume with more sparkly metal/plastic thingies than yours says: " kill those fuckers" and you scream YES SIR, and simply(simpleton) do it.
That would be murder.
Finding an ape on top of your daughter in the garage or crawling out ta window with the family TV set and blowing it's brains all over the wall would be called. " good parenting". //" I killed the piece of shit".Therein lies the difference

 

[forkup]

the 'law' crucified the son of God

So in my view, the 'law' IE- authority, whatever , has zero jurisdiction imposing anything out of the bible, or whatever other celestial document they may choose to foist upon us

and that was exactly the jist our FF's sought to impart, after they departed the theocratic bullsh*t England so proudly insisted on

~S~

It’s also worthy of note that not only was it government that killed Jesus, aided by religious leaders, but that the men who actually performed the dark work were order-followers and law enforcers; the Roman equivilent of police and/or military. This is the recipe for evil in our world: False authority (religion/government) + blind obedience = atrocities against all that is good and righteous. The allegorical wisdom of the scriptures should not be casually dismissed, even by atheists.

There's allegorical wisdom in Aesop's fables, stories my parents told me and even Star Trek. I don't think any of them should be taken as a bases for laws. In fact wouldn't star trek be the better bases since at least the good guys in Star Trek don't on occasion come out with stuff that is simply immoral. If you admit that the Bible is open to interpretation wouldn't it be fair to say that Humanism is a better bases?

Allegorical Interpretation indeed forkup.

and Gene Roddenberry was a master writer ,thrusting such issues during the turmoil of the 60's to living room tv sci fi

remember this one?>>>



~S~

It makes my point. I just reject the notion that you can claim a book is moral, when you have to disregard entire sections of that book to reach that conclusion.

Maybe it is your understanding of what it is telling you that is flawed. After all it is effectively a how to book; how to live life and how not to live life.

So my problem isn't that the book is immoral but rather my command of the English language? The way I see it all the quotes on the previous page were unambiguous, please show me how I have it wrong?