Let’s be controversial shall we….who agrees?
https://blossom.primal.net/e0985eb6be949bf341844b142f766010263395e812d99271f0c599d4cb5c43b9.mov
Discussion
It is wrong for humans to rule over other humans. When the Israelites demanded a human king, God warned them that this would lead to their abuse. Human government always leads to such abuse, for it is a rejection of God's authority. That is what God is telling us, and Christians find themselves in that same position today. Yet most Christians do not take this stand—and they should. It does not matter whether the ruler is a king or whether the public is held up as sovereign—all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus. That should be the Christian position.
I partially agree that human government tends toward abuse and overreach, as Israel’s experience with kings proves. However, Scripture does allow for minimal civil government to restrain evil and protect basic justice (Romans 13), while warning against concentrating power. As a Christian libertarian, I believe most government expansion beyond these narrow bounds violates both biblical principles and human dignity. Christians should advocate for maximum freedom under God’s law, resisting the statism of both monarchies and modern democracies, while recognizing that strictly limited civil authority can serve God’s purposes in a fallen world.
I would say simply that Romans doesn't exist in a vacuum. So when Paul wrote Romans 13, was there an example he was referencing? Was Rome a terror to Christians or a blessing? Jesus did what was good, so did He receive the approval of the state? I believe that Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth. I think Paul believed that as well; he was familiar with the Old Testament and what had happened to Samuel—how Israel had rejected God as their ruler. Isn't that exactly what Christians do when they follow the godless and throw in their lot with sinners?
Hello
I'M Muslim and I invite people to learn about Islam.
Please watch my blog 👇explaining with pictures and videos about Islam
https://jesusen1.blogspot.com/2017/12/what-is-islam.html
I wish you a happy life....Thank you
No thanks.
You should share Islamic perspectives about Jesus Christ.
Many Christians who have negative reactions to Islam would probably feel more comfortable if they understood how much respect you have for Jesus as a prophet.
Then explain why you don't celebrate Christmas or birthdays or any of the other pagan rituals and how it all goes back to the same teachings that Christians used to follow before capitalism corrupted their religion.
Personally I believe that God is incomprehensible and our souls just go back into the void of non existence when we die.
Sua fé é uma farsa:
I’ve been telling people this for a while and this is an awesome, succinct overview of why that I will now share
The argument here is that the majority of today's problems can actually be traced back to the naivety of women.
The argument would be somewhat valid if history had shown that without women's suffrage, power-hungry, egomaniacal sociopaths would not have ruined society.
It distracts from the fact that voting on the property and life of another human being is fundamentally wrong, regardless of whether it is a woman or a man who votes. Men vote just as unfairly as women in other areas.
I see your argument and humbly ask to prove it?
My moral compass tells me that it is fundamentally wrong for a group of people to be able to determine the life and property of an individual through elections (or birthright, etc.) and enforce this with violence. I cannot provide any proofs for this. Probably no one can.
However, there are enough anecdotes from history, the principle of non-aggression, the golden rule...
I share your concern about the violence inherent in coercive government and appreciate the appeal to the non aggression principle and golden rule. As a Christian, I’d add that our moral intuitions against unjust coercion reflect God’s law written on our hearts. However, I’d distinguish between legitimate defense of life and property (which requires some minimal coordinated authority) and the expansive, aggressive state we see today. Romans 13 describes government as God’s servant to punish wrongdoing, not to redistribute wealth or micromanage society. The question isn’t whether any authority exists, but whether it’s strictly limited to its biblical purpose… to protect the innocent and punish evildoers. Most of what modern government does fails that test and becomes the very aggression we both oppose.
I completely agree with you. My moral compass was given to me by God through my family and my intuition.
I also don't think there should be no leaders at all. In my opinion, each individual chooses their own leaders or not. A group of people should never impose a leader on an individual.
I am happy to follow a leader if they are worthy and have proven that they can solve problems morally and efficiently.
And if he no longer does it this way, I must have the right to say no.
Nobody should be allowed to vote!
What an utter idiocy
I follow what he's saying here, but I'm not particularly convinced that democracy is a good system from its foundation.
There seem to be three options ahead of us:
1. Try to go back into history to improve the present. (I genuinely don't think that is possible. The conditions that existed in the past were unique and they are gone.)
2. Continue doing what we are doing now. (Obviously a poor choice)
3. Create some third new option that has not been seen before. (I think this is our best option)
As I see it if a government operates on sound money it will inherently limit it's size and power. As a result, voting will be much less important by extension. It doesn't matter how hard you vote, the laws of physics and thermodynamics are not going to change.
To me that's really the first step forward. It seems a bit nieve to me at times when I head people say 'fix the money fix the world', but I would absolutely say that nothing will improve until the money is fixed... So I tend to focus there more than trying to change laws.
Any political action at this point feels like rearranging furniture on the Titanic.
Good points source. I have some thoughts on your points. But I’m too tired at the moment.
Yeah 👍
You have to believe in the structure that forms a stable civilization to understand. What we have now is specifically designed to destroy civilization. And that includes the entire non-land-owning male vote. As well as its precursor, the federal reserve, income tax, and popular election of senators.