Nathyn:So were the [insert statement grasping at straws]
So were the [insert statement grasping at straws]
No, but they did take the life time of emperors to occur...
Nathyn:Attempting to combine Christianity and the Greek religion into one pro-government philosophy helped Constantine consolidate his power because it was clear to anyone that knew the man that he wasn't a God and many of the Greeks were surely rational enough to realize this.
Attempting to combine Christianity and the Greek religion into one pro-government philosophy helped Constantine consolidate his power because it was clear to anyone that knew the man that he wasn't a God and many of the Greeks were surely rational enough to realize this.
You sure you want to declare the Romans and Greeks the most rational people?
Let us not forget Plato's philosopher kings.
Nathyn: Whereas, under Christianity, he could claim to have divine authority from everyone
Whereas, under Christianity, he could claim to have divine authority from everyone
And if it were true, then I'd agree with you, but I'm not... so...
Nathyn:-- and even if his behavior is irrational, he can simply say, "I'm not perfect. I'm a sinner, like all of us. But I'm your king and it's your Christian duty to obey," and encourage a respect for non-violence and the martyrdom of Christ, so that nobody would attempt to overthrow him with violence.
-- and even if his behavior is irrational, he can simply say, "I'm not perfect. I'm a sinner, like all of us. But I'm your king and it's your Christian duty to obey," and encourage a respect for non-violence and the martyrdom of Christ, so that nobody would attempt to overthrow him with violence.
Paul's quote seems to suggest that divine right empowers men to not sin and to carry out the will of God without having to fall back on, "Christ died for my sins too."
Nice try though.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Perhaps part of the problem is with the use of the word anarchy without further qualification. I am opposed to political government. Certainly any church or other voluntary organization, even a family (which is not completely voluntary) will have a government. The problem is with coericive government.
Of course the statists (that means everyone who believes in any form of coercive government) don't trust the rest of us to do the right things of our own volition.
Note, when Jesus said 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' he did not specify what those things were that were Caesar's.
Francis Scott Key would roll in his grave
to see what's become of 'the Land of the Brave.'
Phill O:Note, when Jesus said 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' he did not specify what those things were that were Caesar's.
As far as I'm concerned, Caesar's due is a knife in the back.
I'm not a Christian either, but are you sure Christian views do need to have to be directly based on the Bible? I mean if they call themselves evangelicals or fundies then yes. Otherwise not really.
The way I see religion that it's a sort of an ongoing community project - every generation changes it a bit and after two thousand years, it has more to do with what happened in that two thousand years than what it was originally. I mean, do think about, for example, the Byzantian Empire. It was totally Christian, but totally un-evangelical. Or think about the stiff, industrious and fun-avoiding Scots and Swiss 200 years ago. Also totally Christian, but yet totally different to the Byzantians.
They would literally ritually slaughter an elder and cannibalistically eat them as a diefication ritual. This is what the communion ritual, as well as the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, is symbolic of.
I'd be fascinated to see a shred of historical proof of that. Not that I'm holding my breath: the earliest examples of "religious" tradition among genus Homo are funerary rituals, predating Judaism by about 30,000 years. They include no evidence of cannibalism.
But in either case, the actual foundation of the official Christian religion (which the scriptures predate by far) is based in Roman politics...
Christianity and Catholicism are two very different things. They're related historically, but not the same thing. You apear to be conflating the two.
--Len.
You've got a good point. It is perhaps because of our perverse collective nature that it is the case that we will ask to be subject to a king of some sort. And if it is the case that we get what we truly deserve, and it is God's will that this is so, then perhaps Anarchy is out of the question. I always found this passage to be quite something:
"10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
"19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
So, because of man's foolish and self-destructive preferences, and from God's perspective, it may be perfectly justified that we suffer under a state, rather than enjoy life as free people living under a just anarchy. But no man can justify that another man impose such a condition on yet another. This may be all a christian anarchist may be able to argue.
The problem with this is the literal context in which these are usually taken. When using these texts, and the sayings of Christ, one must remember that he spoke with meanings for those "with ears to hear."
The quotation from Matthew 22:15-22 is commonly used to say that Jesus condoned taxes. What he was actually saying is that the person who had earned this coin through the fruits of his labors were his. The image of Caesar (being something without value) was all that was owed.
In the second quotation, many people miss the fact that authorities that God has established were priest kings. We do not live under priest kings.
Phill O:Perhaps part of the problem is with the use of the word anarchy without further qualification.
The Christians didn't submit to Roman authority. That would be why they were martyred. They are to submit to government as long as it is just, that is why the revolutionary war recieved support from many Christians. If the law stated that a man must sacrifice his firstborn to the president, that would be breaking God's Law, thus it should not be submitted to because the Christian believes that God's Law, since he is the creator, is superior to man's. So a Christian could very well reject paying taxes if the taxes were being used for the purpose of murder (think Iraq) or other crimes against nature and nature's God.
If everyone followed God's Law (which is built into nature) the world would be perfect, and we would not even need govt for the purpose of protection against those who would harm us. I am not a Christian, but the Bible has very good moral (amongst other things) advise, leave it to men in power to pervert a good thing.