Well, golly Terrence.
One small question... In a discussion of Secular Authority, is it Rational to assume that a person declaring that there is no legitimate "higher authority" other than Self is talking about non-secular matters?
Great question.
Formulate “rules” for dealing with authority without understanding them in the context of Reality, as was being done here in typical anarcho-atheistic fashion, and the four dimensions to which the discussion was limited will be made into a prison.
Is it rational to discuss radio waves and light while limiting the discussion to four dimensions? How much can a fish learn about the ocean if nobody bothers to tell him that he’s studying in an aquarium?
Like radio waves and light, discussions about authority, and now sovereignty, extend beyond the four dimensions. Even science, always pathetically late to the game, has settled on either 10 or 11 dimensions as comprising what is referred to as Reality. So, what’s all the fuss and “surprise” about if such important matters are discussed in full context, here?
If someone tried to figure out whether sound or light had an effect on the trajectory of a bullet, on this forum, would it be “irrational” to do so?
Those who successfully oppress, TPTB and all who comprise them, have been outplaying the population on such matters for centuries.
How about a little thinking outside their box for change?
Can one's Personal Sovereignty be assumed to be more justifiably derived from God than secular sovereignty (which only has Paul to back it up)?
Yes. I don’t see Personal Sovereignty as derived in any way from secular sources.
If one is to accept Paul's position on Secular Sovereignty then aren't we all TheoPolitical SLAVES to whichever "Authority" has declared itself to be the "legitimate authority" that Paul declares MUST exist at the behest of God?
Interesting term, “TheoPolitical”.
The weak and incompetent reading of Romans 13 that remains tragically uninvestigated by so many Christians has been leveraged by many a tyrant to do just that.
Interpreted thoroughly, however, the same words contain much insight to keep from being sucked into all manner of slavery.
Sorry. Paul is no more the Arbiter of Theology than Muhammad is.
Arbiter? I haven’t had much occasion to look at Paul’s writings in that respect. On reflection, arbitration was an occasional task for Paul in sorting out the early churches. Such passages are not many, however, in comparison to the rest of his work.
Since Muhammad was the most successful con-man in history i think there is much to learn about what not to do from him. In comparison, L. Ron Hubbard is a walk in the park.
If Paul is "Right" then the EXISTENCE of the (Original/Founder's) US is a CRIME AGAINST GOD... AS IS ANY RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY THAT IS NOT IN ANTI-PAULINE DOCTRINAL OPPOSITION.
Lot’s of capital letters, here!
There is no command by God to erect a government. The only organizational structure recommended was the advice to Moses to pick men the people trusted to judge matters so he wouldn’t be overwhelmed with such requests.
Even Rothbard refers to this period as one of two long-term successful periods of anarchy (The other being the early Celts, IIRC).
The pleadings of people to appoint an earthly king over them was a sinful rebellion against God. If one reads through the Bible, line by line, asking the question, “Is this where God says to form a government?” the reader will get to the end of the book and find nothing.
I agree with Rothbard that the counter-revolutionary war was a just war, as was the civil war between the states. What was done, afterwards, is a different can of worms.
Then again, I wouldn’t have begged for a king, as the people did in the time of Samuel.
According to Pauline dogma, one can only (nonviolently) oppose anti-Pauline repression... and even then your best hope is for submissive martyrdom.
Much of what Paul wrote was written from jail. If one is looking for passivity amidst oppression or “law abiding” (man’s law) behavior then he’s not much of a role model. If one is looking to be free and maximize their liberty on earth, however, he’s hard to beat.
I thought there were lots of Romans 13 threads, here, so will keep it brief: Read through it in greek as if it’s advice for dealing with all sorts of “powers” and with government being only one of those powers. Start seeing it as some kind of endorsement or advice to create such powers and it all goes terribly wrong (As well as being inaccurate).
And you think that what some of us mean by "no higher (secular) authority" is somehow denying the Supreme Authority of Divinity?
Not at all IF I had seen anyone on this forum, besides you just now, referring to anything
outside of the four-dimensions in front of their face. Taking it further, as you've done, and referring to
the mere possibility of a "Supreme Authority of Divinity" is quite a leap for this forum.
I think doing so will provide useful liberty yielding results and hopefully in the next
few posts or so.
Sorry, your theology just doesn't wash.
What theology is that? It’s quite rare for me to discuss these matters on this forum or anywhere else, up until now. This thread didn’t take much of a theological turn until this exchange, here, with the response to your questions.
Sorry, your theology just doesn't wash.
God #1
Me/Family #2
Philosophy #3
Secular "authority" way at the bottom.
Is this yours or part of what you’re saying that doesn’t wash? I can’t tell which from the context.
