Topic: Attention: Father Merrin
+Anonymous A — 8.6 years ago #49,487
Do you consider secular law to be of greater importance than the will of god?
+Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 8.6 years ago, 3 hours later[T] [B] #535,158
It's adorable how you've spent a week trying to understand what "secular" means, after the embarrassment you suffered in this thread...
https://tinychan.org/topic/49443
...and now you think you've got a handle on it you're going to try once more :))))
To answer your question: to me personally, of course no. To the function of a non-theocratic (better go find that dictionary again!) society, of course yes.
And incidentally the concepts are not related and therefore not in conflict, but one step at a time here. We're still helping you understand what the words you're using mean, so let's wait a while before we get you onto 'concepts'.
Happy to have answered your question. God bless!
https://tinychan.org/topic/49443
...and now you think you've got a handle on it you're going to try once more :))))
To answer your question: to me personally, of course no. To the function of a non-theocratic (better go find that dictionary again!) society, of course yes.
And incidentally the concepts are not related and therefore not in conflict, but one step at a time here. We're still helping you understand what the words you're using mean, so let's wait a while before we get you onto 'concepts'.
Happy to have answered your question. God bless!
+Anonymous C — 8.6 years ago, 36 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,166
+Anonymous D — 8.6 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,171
+Dead !Pool..v42s — 8.6 years ago, 7 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,181
doesn't it say somewhere in the bible to obey the laws of the land? I'm not 100% or anything, I just remember that from the NIV I had as a kid.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 8.6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,183
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
@535,158 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
What if the laws of the land are in conflict with the will of god?
@535,158 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
What if the laws of the land are in conflict with the will of god?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 8.6 years ago, 58 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,184
@535,181 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> doesn't it say somewhere in the bible to obey the laws of the land? I'm not 100% or anything, I just remember that from the NIV I had as a kid.
Was that the same NIV which made you ask: "How can the USA be a secular society if we have In God We Trust on our money?", and it then turned out you had absolutely no idea what a secular society was?
The point is, don't trust whatever you remember from your 'education', because it made you an utter retard.
Anyway, to answer your question with a proverb (literally): "Pay to Caesar what is Caesar's and pay to God what is God's". In other words, terrestrial laws should be honored, because its laws concern the government of worldly affairs, and is part of the social contract. The law of the soul however is God's alone to dictate. Industry, sweat, labor, taxes, etc, these are things we give to 'the law of the land', as you put it. But the soul is given only to God.
God bless you!
> doesn't it say somewhere in the bible to obey the laws of the land? I'm not 100% or anything, I just remember that from the NIV I had as a kid.
Was that the same NIV which made you ask: "How can the USA be a secular society if we have In God We Trust on our money?", and it then turned out you had absolutely no idea what a secular society was?
The point is, don't trust whatever you remember from your 'education', because it made you an utter retard.
Anyway, to answer your question with a proverb (literally): "Pay to Caesar what is Caesar's and pay to God what is God's". In other words, terrestrial laws should be honored, because its laws concern the government of worldly affairs, and is part of the social contract. The law of the soul however is God's alone to dictate. Industry, sweat, labor, taxes, etc, these are things we give to 'the law of the land', as you put it. But the soul is given only to God.
God bless you!
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 8.6 years ago, 49 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,186
@535,183 (A)
> What if the laws of the land are in conflict with the will of god?
In other words, exactly what happened to Christ?
The key phrase you keep using is "in conflict with". In other words, the law of the land is not only separate to the will of God, but actively opposes it in some way. And so in those very, very rare cases (I actually can't think of a modern example of this happening, but for the sake of argument we'll imagine one exists), a Christian must follow the example of Christ and stay true to the will of God. "Thy will be done" is the rule a Christian must submit to when the will of God (in Christ's case, to witness) clashes with the law of the land (in Christ's case, the Romans'/Caesar's).
But again, examples like this in modern society are hard to even imagine, and it's for this very reason we have secularism and separation of Church and State (and to be quite honest, I'm still sensing that you're struggling to fully understand how that works, or even what it means).
> What if the laws of the land are in conflict with the will of god?
In other words, exactly what happened to Christ?
The key phrase you keep using is "in conflict with". In other words, the law of the land is not only separate to the will of God, but actively opposes it in some way. And so in those very, very rare cases (I actually can't think of a modern example of this happening, but for the sake of argument we'll imagine one exists), a Christian must follow the example of Christ and stay true to the will of God. "Thy will be done" is the rule a Christian must submit to when the will of God (in Christ's case, to witness) clashes with the law of the land (in Christ's case, the Romans'/Caesar's).
But again, examples like this in modern society are hard to even imagine, and it's for this very reason we have secularism and separation of Church and State (and to be quite honest, I'm still sensing that you're struggling to fully understand how that works, or even what it means).
+Father Merrin !gT085CjgTk — 8.6 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,187
I'm gay. lol.
+Anonymous G — 8.6 years ago, 3 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,191
@535,181 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
It does, in Romans 13:1-7.
> Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
> 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
It does, in Romans 13:1-7.
> Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
> 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 8.6 years ago, 3 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #535,201
@535,186 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
So, you're OK with the law of the land being in conflict with the will of god? Why didn't you just say that?
So, you're OK with the law of the land being in conflict with the will of god? Why didn't you just say that?
+Anonymous H — 8.6 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,204
·Anonymous A (OP) — 8.6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,205
@previous (H)
He places secular law above the will of god. He could have simply answered "yes" to the question posed in the OP.
He places secular law above the will of god. He could have simply answered "yes" to the question posed in the OP.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 8.6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,206
@535,201 (A)
> So, you're OK with the law of the land being in conflict with the will of god? Why didn't you just say that?
What I wrote: if and when social law conflicts with God's will, then the Christian must place God's will above social law no matter the consequences.
What you understood: the exact opposite of what I wrote.
You are really a shockingly stupid person. Nevertheless, God bless you!
> So, you're OK with the law of the land being in conflict with the will of god? Why didn't you just say that?
What I wrote: if and when social law conflicts with God's will, then the Christian must place God's will above social law no matter the consequences.
What you understood: the exact opposite of what I wrote.
You are really a shockingly stupid person. Nevertheless, God bless you!
·Dead !Pool..v42s — 8.6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,208
@535,184 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
My "education" on this topic was just me reading the bible and remembering the verses cited in @535,191 (G) this post. You keep harping on my knowledge of what a secular society is, is basically like saying "oh you were wrong about this, how could you know anything at all" yet I did remember correctly in this instance. So no, it wasn't the version of the bible that made me not know the definition of secular society, that was my laziness in study about religious terminology.
My "education" on this topic was just me reading the bible and remembering the verses cited in @535,191 (G) this post. You keep harping on my knowledge of what a secular society is, is basically like saying "oh you were wrong about this, how could you know anything at all" yet I did remember correctly in this instance. So no, it wasn't the version of the bible that made me not know the definition of secular society, that was my laziness in study about religious terminology.
·Anonymous H — 8.6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,209
@535,205 (A)
> He places secular law above the will of god.
He said the opposite of that bro. Re-read his post.
> He places secular law above the will of god.
He said the opposite of that bro. Re-read his post.
+Anonymous I — 8.6 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,210
@535,206 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> You are really a shockingly stupid person. Nevertheless, God bless you!
You nailed that one..
> You are really a shockingly stupid person. Nevertheless, God bless you!
You nailed that one..
·Dante — 8.6 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,211
·Anonymous A (OP) — 8.6 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,238
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 8.6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,240
@previous (A)
> Why didn't you just say "no" to the question posed in the OP?
Behold:
@535,158 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> to me personally, of course no.
You are really a shockingly stupid person. Nevertheless, God bless you!
> Why didn't you just say "no" to the question posed in the OP?
Behold:
@535,158 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> to me personally, of course no.
You are really a shockingly stupid person. Nevertheless, God bless you!
·Anonymous A (OP) — 8.6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,242
+Anonymous J — 8.6 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,247
·Anonymous H — 8.6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,248
@535,242 (A)
Maybe because that wouldn't have answered your question? You didn't say "of greater importance" to what in your OP. Your question was kinda dumb. It was like asking "Do you consider baking soda of greater importance to an egg?" Of greater importance to what?
Maybe because that wouldn't have answered your question? You didn't say "of greater importance" to what in your OP. Your question was kinda dumb. It was like asking "Do you consider baking soda of greater importance to an egg?" Of greater importance to what?
·Anonymous A (OP) — 8.6 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #535,260
@535,247 (J)
I didn't move the goalposts. The question required only a simple yes or no answer.
@535,247 (J)
> Maybe because that wouldn't have answered your question?
Again, a simple "yes" or "no" would have answered the question.
I didn't move the goalposts. The question required only a simple yes or no answer.
@535,247 (J)
> Maybe because that wouldn't have answered your question?
Again, a simple "yes" or "no" would have answered the question.
+Anonymous K — 8.6 years ago, 10 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,313
@previous (A)
Stop shifting the goalpost. You asked a question, it got answered. That's it. You were shamed publicly and now need to take it instead of trying to squirm your way out of it.
Stop shifting the goalpost. You asked a question, it got answered. That's it. You were shamed publicly and now need to take it instead of trying to squirm your way out of it.
·Anonymous C — 8.6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,314
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 8.6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,322
·Anonymous C — 8.6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,324
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 8.6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,325
@previous (C)
Except when I use it I am actually addressing a samefag. Unlike you, who just fucked up. Lol :))))))
Except when I use it I am actually addressing a samefag. Unlike you, who just fucked up. Lol :))))))
·Anonymous C — 8.6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,328
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 8.6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,329
@previous (C)
> either
So you admit you fucked up. Lol you walked right into my trap yet again :))))) Ok thanks, that'll be all.
> either
So you admit you fucked up. Lol you walked right into my trap yet again :))))) Ok thanks, that'll be all.
·Anonymous C — 8.6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,331
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Lol the most you've proven is that we're equally wrong. Backing out so soon? Pussy.
Lol the most you've proven is that we're equally wrong. Backing out so soon? Pussy.
·Anonymous K — 8.6 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,345
·Anonymous C — 8.6 years ago, 33 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,346
·Anonymous K — 8.6 years ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,473
@previous (C)
Of course it does. Look at the way you're squirming and obsessively throwing everything at the wall to get it to stick. It's evident to everyone reading your posts that it hurts you.
Of course it does. Look at the way you're squirming and obsessively throwing everything at the wall to get it to stick. It's evident to everyone reading your posts that it hurts you.
·Anonymous C — 8.6 years ago, 36 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #535,477
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.