Secular societies have unbalanced laws, therefore the most clever oppress the not so clever.

Any society which has added or subtracted from God's law has become unbalanced. (deut 4:2)

K. Go ahead and explain to us all what theocracies have that make them so much better.

Start reading his posts and mine from around post #550 or so.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...e-god-1481459/

Good luck making sense of what's about to follow in your conversation with him.

Well, no. 1 on my list would be the concept of dividing the land into lots. (for farming primarily - numbers 33:54)

In this system, all males of the host nation inherit land and therefore are self sufficient and not needing of jobs. So, one could still choose a side business venture, but he wouldn't be negotiating from such a horrid position.

No 2, would be the lack of taxes besides 10 percent for feasts, and inability of others to legislate and demand funding for said legislation.

Most of the law, imo, seems to be geared toward preserving this "free" state.

Yea, Aaron thinks he makes good points by pretending not to understand basic words and chant HOA!

I think I make good points by pointing out that the Torah is not a government, nor does it define one. And I'll also make good points by pointing out the fact that the existence of Home Owners Associations seem to cause problems for your basic concepts. But that conversation has already been had and is not worth having again.

But I'll let Fantaz reach his own conclusions about the content.

To say it's not a government seems bizarre to me as there are rules governing every necessary facet of life and judges to enforce them. The King is the military commander...

Yes, who owns the streets can get tricky...

And you just chanted HOA...an HOA is a subdivision concept, not a whole division concept, with God's law being a serious obstacle to any long term impact even if applied abstractly.

So you think every non-christian should be forced to live in a Christianity based country? Have you considered creating the Christian version of ISIS?

I think it's highly probable talking to you will be a waste of my time. Have a good day.

.

I don't know much about ISIS, but I seriously doubt that they are planning on conquering land and establishing God's actual laws.

Christian, Muslim, Jew, those distinctions are irrelevant - the law is the law for those who claim to follow the God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob. (well, they would be ethnically separated into different countries...most likely, to satisfy land claims and for all to be free)

The weight of the incompetence of unbalanced countries are their undoing, as massive amounts of poor people force things to change. Hopefully we get it right in the next revolution.

The United States is the richest country in the history of the world--much richer than Israel has ever been. It is militarily the most powerful in the history of the world, and relative to other countries, is one of the most powerful in world history. Its government has lasted close to 250 years now--one of the oldest democracies in the world.

So what is your basis for saying it is incompetent?

For all the reasons you just stated here.

I'm not trying to trade quips.

If your country is going to go down in history as the most powerful militarily complex to ever exist then that country has went wrong somewhere - Robin Agrees

This "richness" isn't translating to the average persons experience. Every year the dollar loses value and more and more people barely earn enough to cover basic necessities.

The average American is over 200k in debt, and US deficit is over 18 trillion.

When the poverty level hits a certain point, it will just be a matter of whether or not those "in power" will have the technology to fend this massive group of hungry people off - the technology for a few to defeat many.

(freedom might require an OT level Exodus at this point...the technology might be there)

This number is almost certainly wrong. Most likely, you're using numbers like "average consumer debt" but that debt value is averaged over those who have consumer debt instead of over all consumers. You're probably doing the same with mortgage debt and student loan debt. And then you're adding them all together as if all people have all those debts at the same time.

That's fair I guess. I did just do a quick google awhile ago to get that number.

How much do you suspect the average debt per U.S. resident is? Then take that (surely the average person is in debt) number and apply it to my - "rich?, on average, we're broke; but a few people are rich" argument.

I'm not going to make an aimless guess.

It depends on how you conceive of debt. For example, a doctor that is in his 30s with lots of student loan debt may well be richer over the course of his lifetime than many other people even though right now there's a lot of red on the ledgers.

Similarly, owning a home (even with a mortgage) represents long term wealth which may not be seen by looking at just a number.

But owning a home, when it isn't paid for, doesn't do much good for the person inheriting it.

Doctors, lawyers, bankers...all government workers or companies that have government contracts, do okay. And drug dealers. Aside from that, the trend is that the U.S. is tanking.

This is false. People today live longer, healthier lives than they have at any time in history. They have access to a wider range of goods at cheaper prices (smartphones and computers, clothes and appliances, and so on). And while there are still many people who live below the poverty line, most Americans make a middle-class income or above (roughly two-thirds of American households make $35,000+ a year)

You have no idea what you're talking about. First, the dollar "losing value" doesn't mean people are getting poorer. Second, the U.S. deficit last year (according to the Congressional Budget Office) was $483 billion, so you were only off by about $17.5 trillion (in fact, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is now smaller than its average size over the last forty years). Third, the median American household is $70,000 in debt. However, most of that is secured debt (that is--debt backed by collateral, e.g. a house. This is not a sign of poverty, in fact, the more you owe in secured debt the richer you are likely to be). Unsecured debt (e.g. personal and credit card debt) was at an average of $7,000 per household. So you were only off by about $193,000.

Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance. The poverty level has dropped over the last forty years:

Huh? Let's say that I've got a 15-year mortgage at the age of 35. It's paid off when I'm 50 and I can live in it for the remaining 35-40 years of my life. The current debt doesn't accurately indicate the long term value of owning the home (as opposed to renting).

Note: Not that home ownership is the only way that this type of stability can be created/maintained, but it's a matter of trying to look at the reality of the situation.

You sound like a completely informed citizen right now.

Not really sure what that has to do with competence.