Follow up - What is the single purpose of government...
The single word for the purpose of government turned into a fun discussion with many ideas and good thoughts. Thanks to all who participated. I decided to re-post in hopes that it would make it easier for all to see where I was going. It is my hope that I am not breaking a gulch rule.
I believe you can apply the word “control” to everything that government deals with at every level of government known to man. Government is not necessary to make things move because that will happen without force. I’m not advocating for more control and IMHO we have been run over with control. I’m just saying that there is no need for government except for the purpose of control.
That being said, I believe this country became so incredibly prosperous because our founder limited our governments control over the people. Unfortunately since our founding, government does what it is naturally inclined to do. It grows and consumes power.
Would love to hear more thoughts & comments
I believe you can apply the word “control” to everything that government deals with at every level of government known to man. Government is not necessary to make things move because that will happen without force. I’m not advocating for more control and IMHO we have been run over with control. I’m just saying that there is no need for government except for the purpose of control.
That being said, I believe this country became so incredibly prosperous because our founder limited our governments control over the people. Unfortunately since our founding, government does what it is naturally inclined to do. It grows and consumes power.
Would love to hear more thoughts & comments
Previous comments...
From the Word of God...Romans 13:1–7 (New American Standard Bible 1995)
Be Subject to Government
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
The only authorization for a person not to do as government says is when it directly, by law, or fiat, or other forceful means, requires behavior directly in contradiction to that which God requires in His Word.
Taken out of context your Bible quotes are right out of Plato's Republic.
Plato wanted to rank people based on intellect - placing those with the least intellect as common laborers or merchants, those with some intellect and sound body as the military, and those with the most intellect as politicians. The problem was that this is the basis for elitism: you have the political elite who control the military who in turn control the people.
When Christ was asked by his own disciples who was greatest, instead of picking one of them, He selected a small child from the crowd. He told the vying parties that their purpose was to serve and minister to the needs of the people - like that child. He told them that only the child had the correct attributes by which to govern at all!
Now I do not defend those sects which have departed from this mandate - and some have. There is principle, and there is practice. But to propose that the principles of governance proposed by Plato are equivalent to the principles of governance taught by Christ is inaccurate to say the least.
I would go on to point out, however, that the later portion of "The Republic" does go on to point out the absurdity of the Greek Pantheon as a violation of logic. He thoroughly debunks the absurdity of a group of uber-powerful beings as capricious as the Greek Gods.
Paul had to stand on the Cointhian Church's proverbial necks in order to bring them past their carnality.
That's what I mean by out-of-context.
In the realm of the Spirit, it is the pure-of-heart who lead.
Yes, the purposes are entirely different, especially since God considers partiality a sin because for no reason other than man's own selfish desires he chooses to give and withhold help and knowledge when being partial.
By the way, for those that may think this is a universal principle, it isn't. Partiality isn't when someone does something for value; therefore, you cannot use this argument to pay all people the same rate regardless of their contribution.
Some of this sounds like some king had some scribes edit some Bible books so long ago, that it was ever done has been forgotten in time.
Perhaps you didn't read the caveat below the verses.
Basic English
AC 5:27 When they had brought them, they set them before the council. The high priest questioned them,
AC 5:28 saying, "Didn`t we strictly charge you not to teach in this name? Behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man`s blood on us."
AC 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
"The only authorization for a person not to do as government says is when it directly, by law, or fiat, or other forceful means, requires behavior directly in contradiction to that which God requires in His Word."
Well, I probably wouldn't have made it as a Puritan, but that drive or desire culminated in the most important of our liberties--separation of church and state.
How you got to the SOLE interpretation that government shall not establish a state religion is beyond my powers of comprehension.
But most emphatically, religion must NOT impose itself on government! Man has spent millenia attempting to deduce this one simple fact: religions allied with government is tyranny of the mind!
Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that refer to religion: the establishment clause2 and the free exercise clause3. Today much is said about the establishment clause but there is very little mention of the free exercise clause.
At the very heart of Jefferson's idea "Wall of Separation", is the notion that the government will not interfere with people's right to worship God. The very fact that the government has ruled to regulate religious practices, indicates that the government has crossed that "Wall of Separation."
While Congress has never passed a Law that Prohibits Prayer in School, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is Illegal for children to Pray in School because it violates the "Separation of Church and State" which is not in the Constitution. Their faulty reasoning is that Praying Establishes a State Religion, but in fact, this is really Citizens Freely Practicing their Religious faith in God. The Government would be establishing a State Religion if it forced all the children to pray to a God of one type of Religion or Denomination that they did not believe in. However, Prayer in School was always voluntary and students were free not to be a part of school prayers. Ruling that students can not Pray in School violates the Constitution of the United States by interfering with the Free Practice of Religion. Thus the Supreme Court rulings on School Prayer and Bible Reading are illegal as they violate the Constitution. Thus when the Supreme Court forbids students from praying before a football game asking God to protect the players in the game, the Court is exercising the very tyranny of the minority that our Forefathers tried to stop. The Highest Court in the land has failed to Safe-Guard the Peoples Right to Worship without Government Interference.
The court has twisted and "found" rights and prohibitions that do not exist. The SCOTUS was never envisioned as being the Last word, only another power to balance against the other two. Marbry v Madison changed it all - biggest power shift in US history. Now, the SCOTUS can write any law they like (as above), make us buy anything they want (O'care), spy on us (Patriot Act) whenever they want without a warrant, etc., etc., etc.