Anti-socialists, gather 'round

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

In Christianity, it's the only thing that matters.

That depends on the sect.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I believe that 'human nature' you speak of comes from somewhere.

I don't think it is overly important where it comes from so much as how it operates.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I don't think it is overly important where it comes from so much as how it operates.

When arguing about whether or not morals are God-given, then it certainly matters where it comes from.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That depends on the sect.

There's that word again...

If a 'sect' doesn't believe in the Bible, then it's not really Christianity, is it?

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

There's that word again...

If a 'sect' doesn't believe in the Bible, then it's not really Christianity, is it?

There's hundreds of different sects that do believe in the Bible and all claim to be Christian.

[Jas0n]

I voted only for "military" because it's the closest word to the one that I'd prefer to use, which would be "police." The "military" in this case would not only include a military in the classical sense but also a police function as well as a court system, for the purpose of resolving disputes and providing a venue for trial. All this is necessary to protect folks from aggressors. See, the two questions that basically will tell you whether or not a government is just are these: 1) Are individual rights protected, and 2) is force banned from human relationships? Really #2 is just the practical implementation of #1, but if the answer to both is "yes" then the initiation of the use of force is banned. As we know, people don't always follow the rules -- the "military" as above recommended would stand in order to guarantee that people have some measure of protection from the bad guys. Consider it an approximation of a guarantee of freedom from the (illegal) use of force as well as fraud.

I would propose that this military be supported by the sale of bonds, which would be repaid with the eventual sale of property taken from convicted criminals and liquidated. This would serve to balance interest with protection -- if lots of folks bought bonds, more protection could be budgeted.

I'm still working on this, of course, trying to figure out what's appropriate and consistent. It seems like the proper function of government is to protect its constituents from the use of force, and thus it should be able to remain true to its guarantee to that end ... funding is, as always, the hard part.

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by lew

There's hundreds of different sects that do believe in the Bible and all claim to be Christian.

Just what do you mean by "do believe in the bible"? To actually not believe in the bible is fairly ridiculous ... there are millions upon millions of them in print, I own several myself -- but I'm no christian. By "do believe in the bible" do you mean "believe the bible to be the inerrant word of god"? Or, "believe the bible to contain valid historical information?" Or what?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Just what do you mean by "do believe in the bible"? To actually not believe in the bible is fairly ridiculous ... there are millions upon millions of them in print, I own several myself -- but I'm no christian. By "do believe in the bible" do you mean "believe the bible to be the inerrant word of god"? Or, "believe the bible to contain valid historical information?" Or what?

By "belief in the Bible" I mean that it is a "sacred word of God." Not all Christians hold the entire Bible to be inerrant. But all Christians do hold some sort of value of the Bible above other literary works.

[Jas0n]

Sacred then only in the sense that it holds more value for some reason than other books?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Sacred then only in the sense that it holds more value for some reason than other books?

Basically. Because like I said, not all Christians hold the same exact value of the Bible. However, all Christians do hold some value for the Bible, usually more than those of other works.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

There's hundreds of different sects that do believe in the Bible and all claim to be Christian.

The essence of Christianity is taking the (whole) Bible as God's word. No matter what anybody claims, without that, well...you can decide for yourself. You're smart enough do discern, are you not?

That's like a white man walking around claiming he's black. He can claim it all he wants, but unless he has the essentials of being black (black skin?) then who cares what he claims?

[JSmythe]

Roads n military...

I hate toll booths!

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Let's get one thing straight here: not all morality is subjective.

That's a matter of opinion. I, for one, believe that all morals are subjective.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

There's that word again...

If a 'sect' doesn't believe in the Bible, then it's not really Christianity, is it?

The Bible wasn't compiled until nearly 400 years after Jesus's supposed death. First and foremost, I'm assuming you don't believe that Christianity vanished around 32CE and then magically came back with a bible 350-400 years later, right? So during that 400 year span, according to you, there couldn't possibly have been any "real" (hence "really" in your post) Christians because they weren't reading a Bible, right?

Okay, now consider that it was, in particular, Roman Catholicism that developed the Bible. What of the other divisions of Christianity during that time? Are they not worthy of Heaven, even though they believe in the basic tenets of Christianity? So because the Ebionites held onto their Jewish traditions, but considered Jesus to be the messiah, they are not worthy of Heaven, right? And because the Gnostics prodominately inserted hermeticism and had hermetic interpretations of otherwise mosaic doctrine, they are no longer worthy of Heaven, right?

Going by that belief, you are effectively disregarding the roots of Christianity. Even if you don't believe that Pauline Christianity is a spin-off of Nazarene tenets, you're still acknowledging that the Pauline Christians that predate the Bible are not "real" Christians because they didn't read the Bible.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's a matter of opinion. I, for one, believe that all morals are subjective.

It can't be an opinion. All you have to do is analyze underlying, foundational morals from one culture to the next. They have very similar ones. That is fact. Nothing to have an opinion about.

That means, they are absolute.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The Bible wasn't compiled until nearly 400 years after Jesus's supposed death. First and foremost, I'm assuming you don't believe that Christianity vanished around 32CE and then magically came back with a bible 350-400 years later, right? So during that 400 year span, according to you, there couldn't possibly have been any "real" (hence "really" in your post) Christians because they weren't reading a Bible, right?

Okay, now consider that it was, in particular, Roman Catholicism that developed the Bible. What of the other divisions of Christianity during that time? Are they not worthy of Heaven, even though they believe in the basic tenets of Christianity? So because the Ebionites held onto their Jewish traditions, but considered Jesus to be the messiah, they are not worthy of Heaven, right? And because the Gnostics prodominately inserted hermeticism and had hermetic interpretations of otherwise mosaic doctrine, they are no longer worthy of Heaven, right?

Going by that belief, you are effectively disregarding the roots of Christianity. Even if you don't believe that Pauline Christianity is a spin-off of Nazarene tenets, you're still acknowledging that the Pauline Christians that predate the Bible are not "real" Christians because they didn't read the Bible.

Surely you're not saying the Bible was written all at once? Nor do you think that since the people IN the Bible didn't have the Bible, then they weren't Christians, because they weren't reading it, they were living it? Surely it's not that simple?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

I voted only for "military" because it's the closest word to the one that I'd prefer to use, which would be "police." The "military" in this case would not only include a military in the classical sense but also a police function as well as a court system, for the purpose of resolving disputes and providing a venue for trial. All this is necessary to protect folks from aggressors. See, the two questions that basically will tell you whether or not a government is just are these: 1) Are individual rights protected, and 2) is force banned from human relationships? Really #2 is just the practical implementation of #1, but if the answer to both is "yes" then the initiation of the use of force is banned. As we know, people don't always follow the rules -- the "military" as above recommended would stand in order to guarantee that people have some measure of protection from the bad guys. Consider it an approximation of a guarantee of freedom from the (illegal) use of force as well as fraud.

I would propose that this military be supported by the sale of bonds, which would be repaid with the eventual sale of property taken from convicted criminals and liquidated. This would serve to balance interest with protection -- if lots of folks bought bonds, more protection could be budgeted.

I'm still working on this, of course, trying to figure out what's appropriate and consistent. It seems like the proper function of government is to protect its constituents from the use of force, and thus it should be able to remain true to its guarantee to that end ... funding is, as always, the hard part.

I'm confused on where you stand. You said that it's okay to steal my money to fund your police force (I actually meant to add "law enforcement" to my poll; I just forgot), but then you concluded that the police force would be funded by bonds. That just doesn't seem very consistent.


Personally, I think there should be competition. Law enforcement should be left to the private sector, but the manner in which its all done needs to be within the limits proposed by our laws themselves. To me, it seems as though this would reduce corruption.

To make things simple, imagine that two neighboring cities each have their own police force. The catch, however, is that the jurisdiction of the two departments is exactly the same. So if police force "A" is in the jurisdiction of police force "B" doesn't it seem more likely that "B" will keep "A" in check? Also, as any econ 101 class tells us, competition results in reduced cost. It just seems as though leaving it all to the private sector is the most beneficial way of doing it.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Surely you're not saying the Bible was written all at once? Nor do you think that since the people IN the Bible didn't have the Bible, then they weren't Christians, because they weren't reading it, they were living it? Surely it's not that simple?

The doctrine was all written by 200CE. The Bible itself wasn't established until much later. The extrabiblical doctrine was followed between that time by people just like you. There was no "official doctrine" until much later. So, according to you, there were no "real" Christians during that time, right?

[Diamond Cross]

You can't be a Christian without the Bible, if you claim to have no value in the Bible, then you can not be a Christian because the Bible is the ultimate source in guiding Christians, and those that have no value have probably not read it and thus have no idea what the contents are. A person can not know how to be a Christian without the Bible.