It is difficult for an ongoing business (or an investor) to go bankrupt without debt.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 2
This has to be a mistake? Where's the out? Loophole?
Is Trump the authority or is this some mumbo jumbo such that we aren't really supposed to consider him Gods leader?
Further down in Roman's 13 is the 7 mortal sins clause. That's gotta give Christians an 'out'... right?
" 13 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.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe R13 only applied to the Romans at that time and R 13 has a 'use by ' date?
No. of Recommendations: 5
Divine Right of Rule. Kings have used that for centuries.
Another reason that the bible is totally screwed up. I find it kinda sad that people regard it as a moral guide. It is morally repugnant, with only a few exceptions.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Have they generally been benevolent kings, or.....?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Have they generally been benevolent kings, or.....?
Define "benevolent".
Many kings over the centuries, you never really hear about. They didn't do anything particularly good or bad. The famous ones usually did one or the other. Many oversaw the exploitation of other "nations" (i.e. probably not technically nations, but I can't think of a better word) via colonization. I'm not sure that King George was particularly bad (though he didn't appear to be good, either), but had the distinction of being the one the future-USA rebelled against.
In more contemporary times, royalty has generally been a curious anachronism, not doing much at all. The Saudi king is awful (murderous). Queen Liz, and now King Charles, don't have much real power, and just suck(ed) up resources for nothing. I understand some of the European kings (the few that remain) advocate for charity (or maybe it was a princess?).
Overall, I think people actually want kings (for some reason I can't really fathom), but that kings are generally detrimental as they are not required to consider individual rights and liberties.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think having one modern king that could actually do good is for Afghanistan. Oust the Taliban by arming the remnants of the Northern Alliance but let the latter fight under the king's banner. The king is the only unifying figure in the country.
To clarify, the prospective king doesn't exist right now. It would be whoever heads the House of Barakzai and is willing to risk their neck for their country.
