Who is realistically the higher power, Government or God?

1. 77

   Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago

   If you created the higher power "government " which is imaginary and followed its orders OR
   
   You created the higher power "god" and followed its orders,
   
   Are you any less delusional than those you criticize Religion?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      A higher power is any that is a step above your position in a hierarchy, is it not?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         In that case 98% are religious in US congress . The delusion is centroism,  I'm better off with consciousness,  individualism and integrity.
         
         
         If there is a God to most people, it would be called Government. Reasons?
         
         What group has the most dissatisfied jobs than a public servant for the Government.
         What group has 80% of the People disliking them.
         Who takes a third or half your money, with exception of the wealthy, who are another level of puppets masters.
         After the Government bosses you around all day. Then you have to beg or pray for them to give you privileges.
         Government often acts against the constitution like God of hypocrites. At lease Religion has rules, still both combined are far too much like Gods. It's why half of the world's poorest people of the total world's population. Drives not more than a bicycle and the 1% pollutes most of the world, like they have a super hiway to heaven anyway..

         replyreport
         1. 75

            tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You will have to enlighten me on what the hell centrosim is Castlepaloma. I searched the web finding it only as an online name that posts on Twitter, Twitch, and Tik Tok trying to make a buck and some business in Italy.
            
            Yes, 98% is pretty close to how many are religiously affiliated in the U.S. 117th Congress, today. To be specific it is the following:
            
            468 are of the Christian faith
            33 are of the Jewish faith
            2 are Buddhist, which in essence is an atheist stance
            3 are Muslim
            2 are Hindu
            3 are Unitarian Universalist
            1 is unaffiliated
            19 are Other/Don't know
            
            Interesting you equate government as being a god. In other words, the top of the hierarchy while at the same time excluding God from that hierarchy for most people. I can respect your position while disagreeing with it. I don't think that is the case for most people at least here in the U.S. There is a good chance worldwide too. From a peek 84% of the world's population is religious.
            
            Yet, I don't have the capacity to look into everyone's minds and hearts. So, I rely on credible sources for statistics. I won't go into those because I think you are adept at using Google University to find out for yourself.
            
            I would note that the Christian faith followers place some reliance on the scriptures of the Bible. There is a boatload of verses about following/obeying government authority. One of many is; "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1) See link below if interested for more.
            https://www.openbible.info/topics/obeyi … _authority
            
            I peeked for the Islamic faith out of curiosity seeing similar verses. One is; "O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority over you (Ch.4: V.60)." More can be found at the following link:
            https://www.alislam.org/question/islam- … w-of-land/
            
            So, going back to the OP statement/question: Who is realistically the higher power, Government or God? for Christians it is God. Seems for Muslims as well. Of course, that is dependent on each unique individual wherein one will discover hypocrites in the mix. Aha! Alas, the human condition pokes its silly head into the equation.
            
            Now, the above is only meant to explore your OP statement/question. Take it as you will. The intent is to answer objectively while not inputting my personal beliefs at this time.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Wow, you can list the religious affiliation of members of Congress.
               
               That’ something we can’t do in the UK because Britain is a secular society, so such data is not viewed as important enough to be diligently gathered and published.
               
               In the UK Parliament MPs have to either ‘swear’ on the religious book of their choice, or ‘affirm’ if they prefer e.g. because they are not religious.
               
               At the last swearing in ceremony of Parliament in 2019 of the current 650 MPs in Parliament 150 (23%) affirmed. 
               
               Rishi Sunak (our current Prime Minister) is first UK Hindu Prime Minister, and Keir Starmer, the leader of the official Opposition Party, along with many other MPs chose a secular oath to the King, when MPs recently pledged their allegiance to Kings Charles.
               
               A couple of articles about the above, which makes interesting reading are:-
               
               •    A UK Christian article:  https://www.premierchristianity.com/opi … 21.article
               
               •    A UK Secular article:  https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2 … ry-prayers

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, they both were interesting but I think it is probably more significant since from what I understand it was originally based on the UK's length of history and the relationship with the Church of England. Yet, it did change as you shared with more emphasis on becoming secular and diverse.
                  
                  Here, some may use a religious text to complete their swearing-in by taking an oath, yet it is a choice and not a requirement. Matter of fact they need only raise their right hand. And, as there choose to affirm instead.
                  
                  There was a big whoop-de-do when a newly elected senator took his oath on the Quran. John Quincy Adams when taking the oath of office for president did so on a book of law back in 1825.
                  
                  Also, backing up a bit, government oaths of office cover a wide spectrum from the president to elected officers to soldiers to civil servants such as you were. It is specific to the Constitution. And, it is prescribed by the Constitution as well.
                  
                  Article VI, Clause 3, states:
                  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
                  
                  The following not-so-long article gives great information on it.
                  https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commenta … -it-means/
                  
                  Briefly, from the article, it comes down to; "The Oaths are relatively straightforward, but what do they mean? I see the oath as having 3 important aspects. First, the employee swears to support and defend the Constitution against enemies. Second, s/he swears allegiance to the Constitution. Finally, the employee promises to do his/her job well." As far as I am concerned anyone working directly for the government is an employee including the president.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks for the comprehensive feedback.
                     
                     From what you say, and the link you provided, the only real differences in the UK that I can see is that:-
                     
                     1.    The oath of allegiance in the UK isn’t to support the constitution; the British Constitution, which stems back to the Magna Carta in 1215 is unwritten, and thus not set in stone – therefore unlike Americans, we Brits are not passionate about our Constitution. 
                     
                     In the UK the oath of allegiance is to the King or Queen.
                     
                     2.    Unlike the USA, in the UK the civil service is apolitical, therefore when I joined the civil service there was no oath for me to affirm; the only requirement I had was to sign the ‘Official Secrets Act’.
                     
                     The only times I’ve had to affirm is when I was on jury service, and when as Executor to a Will I had to get ‘Probate’.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        If I had a gun to my head and force to choose between US political constitution or king Charles. I rather be my boss away from both of them yet constitution is more fair. .  Both are too corrupted to be my boss. Even though we are force to sign our name in capitals, Then told we volunteered the agreement by signing, even though its not our real name.  Then our lives are at the mercy to their authority.  At least religion dose not force you to join their God with more forgivable guidelines and donations. With some exceptions of Muslims of mind control.  The Goverment gods do use police brutality or violence coercion.  Sometime use state terrorism to their compliance  theory. 
                        The state will cause human rights abuses, replacing them with privileges.

                        replyreport
            2. 77

               Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               US do not list any atheist in the Government powers. Yet they do register atheist as a religion. That's like calling virginity a sexual position. White Christians of US administration are above par of it's US Christian citizens per capita in numbers of power.
               
               A Prince Charles as a King is going backward, not advancing humanity forward. Who wants to go back before the time of the US in 1776. Where the whole world was rule by kings or extreme dictatorship worldwide.
               
               Centroism or centrist in first wind from my personal  experience was like a monopoly.take over power. That took away my US green card for refusing GW Bush a war sculpture. Because killing is the worst crime of any kind of crIme possible. The new world order proclaimed by George Bush was the promise of 1945 fulfilled, a world in which international institutions, led by the United Nations, guaranteed international peace and security with the active support of the world's major powers. That world order is a chimera. Even as a liberal internationalist ideal, it is infeasible at best and dangerous at worst. It requires a centralized rule-making authority, a hierarchy of institutions, and universal membership. Equally to the point, efforts to create such an order have failed. The United Nations cannot function effectively independent.
               
               Recently billionairs is another form of centroism. It's a movement of taking over millionaires like myself with great success. Some call us the dinosaur of the middle class. Far from any example of equality for all.

               replyreport
   2. 86

      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If you're an atheist like me, then it's a meaningless question!

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I'm a lot of things, yet not as extreme as an atheist. These are all theories as much as God, both fairytails,  until proven. An agnostic or anachartist would be closer to the middle ground truth of the both extremes, if God exist or not. I chosen individualism, love, work with aims of spiritual sidedness and a learning life process,  Until spiritual unknowns to can be manifest and mastered into the ego self. As we all come from the stand point of greater ignorance and chaos. When one chosen hierarchy and centroism, they require slaves in order to exist. Being an unbalanced of human equality.  I can exist without anyone owning me, can't even own myself. . Closest thing to godlike is our imagination, where everything we have ever achieved in life was all once imagined, even money.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That's where anarchism fails miserably; as a society we need hierarchy and structure.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I didn't say anarchism, that would another kind of Centroism. People who are spiritual sided, anarchist who are more agnostic and  millions of other groups are parts of a whole. Hierarchy or Centroism is just extremely selfish greed and onesidedness. It won't happen because every one has the selfish gene in them. What is working is the darkside of temporary compliance theory to record profiteering. Yet to be fully greatly abused and balanced out by individualism being a stronger force and improvement of personal growth.

               replyreport