Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Conserative Morality]

This is... not a valid interpretation.

Soldiers in the army are commanded to follow orders, except when it violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Does that mean it's "Obey your commanding officer when they command you to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice" and that's as empty as it gets?

You wanna point out where in the Bible Jesus says "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unless he wants to render to him some incense, in which case, fuck him"?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

That's the pretty basic position for us to take, yeah. Obviously things can vary from person to person because even when we are organized into religious groups (ie Hellenion or some of the Germanic style groups) the focus tends to be on correct practice and exact individual belief is just that, left up to the individual practitioner.

Fair enough but I'm still curious how this would actually logically hold. Are Ra, Apollo, and Sol the same person since they're all the deity of the sun, are they just avatars of the sun? Why did the pantheons do absolutely nothing when utterly thrashed by one desert boi's religion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for throwing aside Christianity and Islam and returning to pagan beliefs (bring back the pharaohs) I just can't understand it.

For the first question: Yes and no. Some consider them separate deities, some saw them as different aspects of the same deity, and others saw them as the exact same deity going by different names. This sort of debate isn't exactly unique to paganism, and a modern example of this might be "are Jehovah, God, and Allah the same god or not".
For the second: You could probably write an entire book on this subject, but the answer probably boils down to the fact that it's easier to pray to one god than it is to pray to several hundred, and God (as much of an asshole as He was) was probably more likely to answer your prayers than Jupiter. (Sure, God might not do what you asked when you asked it, but Jupiter would probably just eat all your food, sleep with your wife, electrocute your livestock when bored, and fly back to Olympus before you figured out what was going on.)

[Galloism]

This is... not a valid interpretation.

Soldiers in the army are commanded to follow orders, except when it violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Does that mean it's "Obey your commanding officer when they command you to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice" and that's as empty as it gets?

You wanna point out where in the Bible Jesus says "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unless he wants to render to him some incense, in which case, fuck him"?

Well, in Acts, Peter specifically stated they must obey God as ruler rather than men (Acts 5:29), so if this was seen as an act of devotion or worship in the context at the time to someone other than God, and that worship belongs only to God, refusal would be the only appropriate response.

Even Jesus implied this with his "Render Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God", which you just referenced.

[Conserative Morality]

Well, in Acts, Peter specifically stated they must obey God as ruler rather than men (Acts 5:29),

So a direct contradiction. "Render unto Caesar" is a command to obey the earthly rulers, but then his disciple goes and says "Obey God as ruler, not earthly powers"?

so if this was seen as an act of devotion or worship in the context at the time to someone other than God, and that worship belongs only to God, refusal would be the only appropriate response.

All the Roman state was seen as comprised of acts of devotion towards various gods. Taxation itself was a deeply religious matter.

[Galloism]

Well, in Acts, Peter specifically stated they must obey God as ruler rather than men (Acts 5:29),

So a direct contradiction. "Render unto Caesar" is a command to obey the earthly rulers, but then his disciple goes and says "Obey God as ruler, not earthly powers"?

so if this was seen as an act of devotion or worship in the context at the time to someone other than God, and that worship belongs only to God, refusal would be the only appropriate response.

All the Roman state was seen as comprised of acts of devotion towards various gods. Taxation itself was a deeply religious matter.

Keep in mind Jesus didn't say "render everything to Caesar always". He said "Render Caesar's things to Caesar, and God's things to God". There's no contradiction in that - he specifically implied that some things are not Caesar's to take. Therefore, Peter was following the direction given by Jesus when refusing to give Caesar things that belong to God.

Regarding taxation itself being considered a religious devotion, I think I'd have to see some sourcing on that.

[Conserative Morality]

Keep in mind Jesus didn't say "render everything to Caesar always". He said "Render Caesar's things to Caesar, and God's things to God". There's no contradiction in that - he specifically implied that some things are not Caesar's to take. Therefore, Peter was following the direction given by Jesus when refusing to give Caesar things that belong to God.

And isn't God's domain all of the universe? Or does Caesar get to keep him out of his little corner? Just a cheap fucking cop-out.

Regarding taxation itself being considered a religious devotion, I think I'd have to see some sourcing on that.

https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/605
https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/ccgg_101 ... 1_1372.pdf

The concept of taxes as both public and sacred dues to the Roman state and to the powers that supposedly upheld it was a major part of Roman taxation. The treasury itself was fucking sacred.

[Camelone]

Well, in Acts, Peter specifically stated they must obey God as ruler rather than men (Acts 5:29),

So a direct contradiction. "Render unto Caesar" is a command to obey the earthly rulers, but then his disciple goes and says "Obey God as ruler, not earthly powers"?

so if this was seen as an act of devotion or worship in the context at the time to someone other than God, and that worship belongs only to God, refusal would be the only appropriate response.

All the Roman state was seen as comprised of acts of devotion towards various gods. Taxation itself was a deeply religious matter.

It’s one thing to give money to a government and they do what they want with it and a completely other thing to directly worship a false god or other power because all worship belongs fully to God.

[Valrifell]

Orthodoxy is lame. Come back when you have a winner on your hands.

Fact: the Orthodox have the best hats out of any Christians and thus are objectively the coolest

Bah, that's only since the 1960s when the Popes stopped using the Papal Tiara.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

So a direct contradiction. "Render unto Caesar" is a command to obey the earthly rulers, but then his disciple goes and says "Obey God as ruler, not earthly powers"?

All the Roman state was seen as comprised of acts of devotion towards various gods. Taxation itself was a deeply religious matter.

It’s one thing to give money to a government and they do what they want with it and a completely other thing to directly worship a false god or other power because all worship belongs fully to God.

Is it ever clearly outlined in the Bible what does and does not belong to God?

[Old Tyrannia]

New edition of the thread is up. I'm keeping it locked until we actually reach page 500.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Quick lads, talk about something wildly controversial so we can reach 500.

[Nea Byzantia]

Quick lads, talk about something wildly controversial so we can reach 500.

Who was the most Evil Dictator in History?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Quick lads, talk about something wildly controversial so we can reach 500.

Who was the most Evil Dictator in History?

Barrack Obama.

[Galloism]

Keep in mind Jesus didn't say "render everything to Caesar always". He said "Render Caesar's things to Caesar, and God's things to God". There's no contradiction in that - he specifically implied that some things are not Caesar's to take. Therefore, Peter was following the direction given by Jesus when refusing to give Caesar things that belong to God.

And isn't God's domain all of the universe? Or does Caesar get to keep him out of his little corner? Just a cheap fucking cop-out.

It's really best understood in terms of governmental hierarchy.

You're ordered by the state of California to take a certain action. If the feds are silent to the issue, you must comply. But if there's a United States law that says you can't take that action, then you must comply with federal law - the higher authority.

Similarly, if the Roman government tells you to take a certain action, and God is silent about it, you must comply. If that would violate an order from God, then you must comply with God - the higher authority.

It's really quite simple.

This is not unlike the military command to follow orders generally, unless those orders are in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress, which is a higher authority than your commanding officer.

Regarding taxation itself being considered a religious devotion, I think I'd have to see some sourcing on that.

https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/605
https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/ccgg_101 ... 1_1372.pdf

The concept of taxes as both public and sacred dues to the Roman state and to the powers that supposedly upheld it was a major part of Roman taxation. The treasury itself was fucking sacred.

First one doesn't seem to talk about it being considered a religious devotion at all. Second one gives me an error message. In french.

Tracing it back through the site lands me on a very long article. I'm about halfway down and it hasn't mentioned religious devotion of tax paying at all. Can you tell me where to focus?

[Conserative Morality]

It’s one thing to give money to a government and they do what they want with it and a completely other thing to directly worship a false god or other power because all worship belongs fully to God.

The legal fiction of the Emperor's personhood was a deeply enshrined aspect of Roman law. Official business was carried out in front of an image of the Emperor; when high-ranking imperial officials under command of the Emperor and not the Senate acted, they acted with the personhood of the Emperor.

This is why when several officials moved the hands of Christians who refused to make the sacrifices, they still counted it and sent them on their way: it was an execution on behalf of the Emperor, in his personhood. What the individual believed didn't matter. It wasn't a matter of worship, it was a matter of exercising the will of the Emperor as his agent - obeying the law and the state.

[Nea Byzantia]

Who was the most Evil Dictator in History?

Barrack Obama.

[Diopolis]

Quick lads, talk about something wildly controversial so we can reach 500.

Who was the most Evil Dictator in History?

Napoleon.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Barrack Obama.

Maoist Obama huh? I'm torn on how to feel about this. On one hand commies bad, but on the other hand P E O P L E S W A R

[Duhon]

Now let me just say before space runs out that "Making Things Right Again" is hopelessly lame, even as a campaign slogan and AM I DOING THIS RIGHT???

[Thermodolia]

Who was the most Evil Dictator in History?

Barrack Obama.

What FDR or Wilson don’t get a mention?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Now let me just say before space runs out that "Making Things Right Again" is hopelessly lame, even as a campaign slogan and AM I DOING THIS RIGHT???

3/10 too much red

Barrack Obama.

What FDR or Wilson don’t get a mention?

FDR didn't carry out the Bowling Green Massacre

[Nea Byzantia]

Barrack Obama.

What FDR or Wilson don’t get a mention?

They should...right up there with Obama

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Who was the most Evil Dictator in History?

Barrack Obama.

Not a dictator.

[Thermodolia]

Now let me just say before space runs out that "Making Things Right Again" is hopelessly lame, even as a campaign slogan and AM I DOING THIS RIGHT???

3/10 too much red

What FDR or Wilson don’t get a mention?

FDR didn't carry out the Bowling Green Massacre

Ok that still leaves Wilson.

Maybe we should have a street fighters style fight.

[Diopolis]

Barrack Obama.

What FDR or Wilson don’t get a mention?

Wilson was the worst president in our history.