Should Christians Hate the State?

Recommended Reading

[Sofiofilia]

-Should Christians Hate the State?
-Yes.
>refuse to elaborate
>leave

[fusion]

Yes. Yes x10^8.
A Christian cannot serve two masters.

[Yokopo_]

The Israelites were warned in 1 Samuel 8 what would happen if they had an earthly king.

[Lord_Volkner]

I haven't listened to this yet, but Leo Tolstoy wrote a wonderful book on the subject of the title. It's called _The Kingdom of God is Within You._ It's a hard read, but well worth it.

[Wonderwall]

I found Lew Rockwell from a question of reading the passage of Matthew 22 15-22 about 12 years ago and only last year learned he is connected to mises.

[americancomicscoTV]

A growth fundamental, is to allow someone the choice to fail...

[JamesAndrewMacGlashanTaylor]

The problem is and always has been in the very formulation that is presented in this episode, quote: "If you LIKE human flourishing, if you LIKE civilization..." (emphasis added). Particularly that it was formulated as a conditional statement where the antecedent is a preference seems to highlight the dependence on subjectivity. One cannot make this statement on the one hand and on the other claim that what is good or what is right is somehow objective and not in any way related to subjectivity. I have my own attempt at a solution for this, though I am not entirely convinced it succeeds. If I am not mistaken (after all I am not the best scholar) it comes down to the question of does the human domain consist in a good simpliciter? I tend to side with the "good for" argument rather than "good simpliciter". Therefore, rather than making moral philosophy about the Good, instead limit it to questions of truth. Let ethics regard what is good and thus limit it to what is "good for" and thus making room for subjectivity. Ethics are objective only in the sense that ethics are grounded in a conditional such as mentioned in the beginning of this comment. Thus it is objectively true that a given antecedent "objectively" yields a particular consequent. If the antecedent is your "good for" than the consequent is your ethic. This is entirely in keeping with Mises' understanding of rationality. Limiting moral philosophy (as differentiated from ethics) to the True preserves its objectivity - that is to say is "law-like" characteristics - however it must cut its ties to the good simpliciter in order to function. I just don't see any way of having your cake and eating it too while remaining in the domain of human action. Transcending the human domain is another question. Of course, this is simply my bias; I don't find arguments in favor of good simpliciter very convincing. It's like saying such and such is good because I said so. That is not proper philosophy, in my opinion, and on those grounds it fails.

The other thing that seems to trip me up and perhaps is the reason why I take the position I do comes out of the following: a tendency is not a law. A tendency is an historical artifact. A law is the theoretical grounding of that artifact, which may on the surface appear very counter intuitive to the observed tendency. In any case, to illustrate the distinction, perhaps there is natural tendency that humans LIKE flourishing, that humans LIKE civilization, etc. But that does not make it a law. On the other hand, simply pointing that out does not refute that it is a law. It is simply saying that the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. This is one of the areas where I, for one, am looking for guidance in my pursuits.

[Conrail]

This shouldn’t be a hard question to ask, but unfortunately it is for many.

[SmokeBanshee]

Everyone should despise the existence of a state.

[klaptongroovemaster]

Just the smart ones. "Hate" is too strong a word. I go with avoid it as much as you can, like other corrupt, creepy things.

[matthewrawlings]

Hate it, no: some state is arguably necessary; be skeptical of it, yes: it's made up of fallen individuals and operates in a fallen world therefore subject to corruption and necessarily falling short of the ideal.

We should demand the smallest possible amount of power to be in the state and for that power to be defused as low as possible.

[kendreamer]

The Christian model doesn't hate the State. The Children of Israel had a king like King David a High Priest like Aaron a Prophet Moses and Courts and Judges Samson. They all had to obey God though. So the State had to obey God.

[patted]

What did Jesus mean when he said "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers; Render unto God that which is Gods"? Well let's see...The Pharesees had broken God's Laws by placing themselves between The Jewish People and a direct relationship/connection to Jahovah. (That's what "I Am The Lord Your God, You shall have no other GODS before Me" actually means! Jahovah wasn't talking about Zues or Nephratite! "gods" means "an authority"). Jesus was calling The Pharesees out on this, and they wanted Jesus dead, but didn't want to do it themselves! So after one of his sermons they asked Jesus, in a crowd of witnesses, "Should Jews pay Roman tax?". Expecting him to say "No of course not!". Then the Roman's would immediately execute him. But Jesus said "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers; Render unto God that which is Gods". The Jewish People had excepted the "Privledges and Benefits" of The Roman State; and when you except, even without a signed contract, privileges and benefits, they had legally contracted with The Roman State. So Ceaser had every legal right to expect taxes to be paid. Our Creator wants us to stay free of the gods of government, which offer us "sweet meats" in exchange for our enslavement. When we accept Privledges and Benefits, we have to give up our Natural Rights (and Our Freedom with it) and by doing so we make the state "our god" and sever the connection to The Creator. We become slave to the state.

[VicariousReality]

Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it.

[kendreamer]

That's a good point it's not the immigration. It is what is taught in school and university

[EdLayne]

There is a reason it is referred to as a Beast.

[believein]

It’s interesting when this question is posed about the US compared to a country like China or Russia.

It reveals an unChristian patriotism that seeks to fulfill a secular desire, not a Godly one.

There is no room on the stage of a Christian church for a flag of a country. We are to be not of this world, nor love the things of this world. Our loyalty should be to God alone, and we should hate the state if the state does ungodly things such as starts wars for simple profit or teach nationalism (camouflaged racism) or promoted secular and pagan things.

God forbid we commit idolatry by worshipping and serving a piece of land, government, or flag.

So many in the US are delusional that they can somehow command God to embrace nationalism, or teach that He does in an attempt to be God and supersede His Word. The audacity.

Looking at its history and present identity, yes a true Christian would hate the state in the US simply because of what it is and how it obviously goes against anything Christian. Trying to blend the two just because one has claimed to be from this country and has distanced themselves from their actual ethnicity and has nowhere else to go is never acceptable. Especially when that state is ungodly to its core and origins and practices.

[ABC]

Universally Preferable Behavior and Argumentation Ethics are the two seminal works on secular ethics

[reconcostarica]

Hate it? No. Obey it when it tells you to disobey God? Also, no. Bring it under biblical law limits? Yes.

This means minarchism not anarchy.

[greathoundii]

Should theists hate the State? That's the better question.