How closely related are ....

Do we have freedom of choice or is He all controlling?

 

yes what you do is satisfying so its justified to act like those who annoy you your surly teaching them a great lesson and not just copying the actions of trolls and continuing the same cycle of behavior

 

Freedom of choice is all you have and even in that the choice is only applicable to those that are not followers. Once you become a follower, then that choice is restricted to the contract conditions... You serve and He provides.

 

What is that other old saying (this time from the Bible) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Everything has it limits and or boundaries... when the boundaries are repeatedly crossed, then it is time to likewise cross the boundaries.

 

Why should I waste my time and the bandwidth on such nonsense as you posted?

 

So do I. But by what principle do you choose? If the state defines some crime, why does it not define all crime, including what is not a crime?

Yes, I'll accept that we abide by the consequences of not abiding by the statute, but I do not recognize the state as making law. If the state makes the law, then what law makes the state?

 

I operate on the Christ principle. The crimes that are defined by the state are the crimes that one needs to concern him/her self with in the secular world. However, when it comes to the spiritual world, then there are other crimes that the secular world cannot address.

Then you recognize the semantic play on words. "The State" as in the governing body of elected officials (representatives of the People) are the ones who make the Law, including the law which made the state by the actions of previous elected officials. "The State" as in a geographical area is an illusion... (illusion demonstrated by the absence of any physical marking in areas where there is little or no traffic... no state lines). "The State" as being the entire population of the area that is governed are the People who elect the officials to make representation.

The illusion of government (secular) is a great one for the atheist/non-theist to be concerned with. "The State" is in fact an incorporeal being which in and of itself has no power to do anything, but is totally dependent upon the People to grant to it any presumed authority that it might have. So, when the atheist and other non-theists become involved in the voting scheme, they are indulging in worshiping an incorporeal being... the State.

 

The "People" are an illusion as well. There are only individuals, not a body giving consensus.

With this, I agree, but I would not just apply this to atheists and non-theists.

 

There is no relationship by definition. You're not going to get any useful understanding of a political philosophy or a worldview from a dictionary. You have to ask people what they mean when they when they call themselves anarchists. I am a Christian, and I'm happy to call myself an Anarchist, because it is generally understood as one who believes that government is not necessary and that no government at all is to be preferred over any government. The anarchist doesn't oppose all authority, just coercive authority. Why should he oppose God? God isn't coercive. We're free to defy Him if we will. What about hell? You won't have a choice about it when He sends you to hell, that's true. But He's just playing by the principal of self ownership. God owns Himself and the product of His labor. You're the product of His labor. He's free to destroy the product of His labor, if He wants to.

I see, in you're last post there, that you are saying that power to govern is derived from the consent of the governed. I suspect you don't really believe, though, that that's the end of the matter. Jesus told Pilate that the only reason he has power is because it was given to him by God. I suppose that's the way it actually works. God doesn't seem loath to give power to psychopaths, since it would be hard to argue that many a psychopath has not risen to power. Well, I just take it a little bit further and assume that anyone who wants to rule the world is a psychopath. Shouldn't we all desire to be free from the rule of the psychopath? You have affirmed that sometimes it is right to resist what God has ordained in order to obey what God has commanded. Do you suppose that the men who resisted England in order to form the United States were doing the will of God, or not? I'll assume you would say that they were. If a group of anarchists succeed in establishing a society wherein a state is defacto illegal, would they be doing the will of God, or not?

 

I thoroughly disagree with this notion. We cannot be self-owners if we are owned by someone else, even a deity. A rational moral actor cannot morally be owned by another rational moral actor. I would also argue that God can't not be present anywhere. Hell is not a place, but is the separation we create for ourselves from God. It is not a place in the afterlife or some divine punishment. The creator is perfect, and only perfection can come from perfect. Our limited views perceive imperfection and that, to us, is hell. Look upon perfection, and you will find the heaven that is within you.

 

Gee ,,, your spelling skills appear to be astounding. Do you have any other eloquent skills to speak about?

 

I seem to have overlooked this one BHK. My apologies.

As previously stated. Quoting you (in relevant part) "barest speculation based on very weak correlation", is a refutation of your post to which I am responding. You claim that I offered no evidence, yet it is you who provided the evidence by suggesting that what I wrote consisted of the "barest speculation based on very weak correlation". Your testament is the evidence. So, your testament is sufficient to refute your claim. You have in essence testified against yourself.

 

Well dang, that sucks. I expected you to disagree, but I didn't expect you to disagree so thoroughly. No, a moral agent can't have two owners. But I'm a card carrying substance dualist. So, if I am not my body, and God owns me, and I own my body, then my commitment to orthodox Christianity and to the principal of self ownership are both internally coherent. As for hell, I don't really have a strong commitment to a particular doctrine. I prefer annihilation theory because, when I debate other Christians, annihilation theory turns out to be easier to defend than eternal suffering. I also notice that even the brightest of apologists who defend eternal suffering always come back to motivation as a reason to believe eternal suffering over annihilation, as in "we can't tell people they just die in the end. Because then what's the motivation to stop sinning?"