Sorry, but the misunderstanding is entirely yours. You're wrong again as on all your other points. — Apollodorus

Is this what counts as an argument for you? There is an extensive literature on this, much of it written by Christian scholars.

There are online versions of the Bible that allow you to search. Do a search in the Old Testament for the terms 'son of God' and 'sons of God'. Read the article "Son of God (Christianity)" on Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God_(Christianity)#:~:text=In%20Christianity%2C%20the%20title%20Son,be%20found%20in%20the%20Bible.

You obviously don't understand the Bible and you can find no evidence to support your unfounded and erroneous claims. — Apollodorus

The New Testament is not monolithic. There are claims made by John that are not found anywhere else. Johannine Christianity is distinct from the synoptic gospels and writings of Paul. The Wiki article provides plenty of evidence.

And no, Jesus was not teaching the "Jewish Law", he was teaching the LAW OF GOD. — Apollodorus

These are not two separate things. It is the Law given by God to the Jews. Paul makes a distinction between the written Law and the law as it can be found in the heart of the Gentiles. Paul is quite explicit on this.

That was the whole point of his mission on earth, to reestablish the Law of God which the Jews or at least some of them had departed from ... — Apollodorus

This is all from within the Jewish tradition of interpretation and application of the Law.

And, of course, the verses from the Hebrew Bible you're referring to, just don't exist. That's why you can't quote them. — Apollodorus

The Wiki article linked above gives an extensive list.

Sounds horrible. During surgery they give the patient paralytics. There are cases where the paralytics works but the patient is still aware and can feel the pain of the scalpel and has no way of signalling that they are awake.

They call it the soul. Why is that answer insufficient? — frank

The term has a long history and has meant different things. To say that the soul is something other than the body does not tell us what it is, it just gives it a name.

Nowhere does Jesus teach that he was God's only son. This was a belief that developed later.
— Fooloso4

Really? How late is this then? — Apollodorus

In the Patristic Era.

They called him "Rabbi" AND "Son of God". — Apollodorus

Yes. But you accused me of making up the claim that he was a Jewish rabbi. You are avoiding the issue of what the term 'son of God' meant during the age in which Jesus lived, how it was used in the Hebrew Bible and by Paul and John, and how it was later used in the Creed.

The Koran calls him a Prophet. — Apollodorus

This is much closer to what the term 'son of God' meant at the time of Jesus.

I'm sure even you can see that "Son of God" and "Prophet" is not the same as "rabbi" in the ordinary sense. — Apollodorus

Of course they are not the same! This is just a smoke-screen to obscure the fact that you initially denied that Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher of the Law.

Here is the problem: I read the Gospels in their historical context. You read them based on later developments. Now I have given you enough information for you to do some research on your own in order to see the difference if you care to.

so the corroborated testimonial evidence while my heart is stopped and I'm no longer breathing — Sam26

While your heart stops and you are no longer breathing you are still alive. Clinical death is the irreversible loss of brain function. What the mind sees when blood is restricted to the brain is not evidence of out of body experience. One of the drugs given with anesthesia makes you forget what you may be aware of during surgery. There may be, to varying degrees, depending on the individual, some awareness of the surgical procedure. This is well documented in the medical literature and is the reason drugs are administered to make you forget.

This just doesn't follow, i.e., because I can't explain how it is that people are able to have an OBE — Sam26

This is not what I am asking. What is being asked by me and @Banno as well is what it is that is separate from the body and functions and endures without it. Giving it a name, soul or consciousness, does not say what it is that perceives and feels but is not a function or process of the body.

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something to these NDEs. — Sam26

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something that is not fully understood. To conclude that these people have left their bodies is not being open minded, it is to insist on a desired outcome.

... not because he was a professional rabbi. — Apollodorus

"Professional" rabbi was at that time a meaningless term. I said he was a rabbi, a teacher of the Law, and you accused me of making it up. I provide textual examples and instead of simply admitting you were wrong, try to argue something else.

Christianity believes in Jesus as the Son of God. — Apollodorus

This is based on a misunderstanding of the term 'son of God' or 'sons of God'. No, I am not making it up. It is used several times in the Hebrew Bible. This time you can look it up yourself. It did not mean what it came to mean for most Christians.

There was a dispute in the early Church as to what 'son of God' meant. Arius rejected what came to be known as Homoousian Christology. Despite having the stronger hermeneutical argument, his side lost at the First Council of Nicaea, and he was labelled a heretic. Look it up.

Therefore the idea that he was "a Jewish rabbi" is unsupported by the sources. — Apollodorus

The fact that Christians believe he was the Son of God does not mean he was not a teacher of the Law. John 1:49 affirms that he was a rabbi. The fact that it also calls him the son of God does not mean John denied he was a rabbi.

As for "Jewish" ... — Apollodorus

Jesus taught strict adherence to the Jewish Law. His disciples followed the Law. Paul preached to the gentiles that they did not have to adhere to the written Law to be saved. Look it up.

... the authentic teachings of the Christian Faith. — Apollodorus

You really do not know your Christian history. You may take the Creed to be the authentic teaching but it was one of many in the early Jesus movement. Nowhere does Jesus teach that he was God's only son. This was a belief that developed later.

Where are the sources that say "Jewish rabbi"??? You're making it up as usual, aren't you? — Apollodorus

Mark 9:5

Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.

John 1:38

Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”

They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?”

Where does it say he was a "Jewish rabbi"??? First time I hear of that. — Apollodorus

You need to increase your circle if acquaintances, or better yet, do some research.

Rabbi means teacher or leader. Do you believe that Jesus was a Jew? Do you believe he taught adherence to the Law? Put it together and you'll get your answer.

You're making that up, aren't you? — Apollodorus

Once again, a direct quote:

This suggests that an essential aspect of Christian love is not as some might assume having an attitude of affection, etc. toward our neighbor or even concern for his material wellbeing,

You say what is not an essential aspect of Christian love. The last thing that is not essential is material well-being. Your words not mine.

not exclusive. — Apollodorus

When you say "not X" you exclude X.

What my whole statement means ... — Apollodorus

As Alice was told in Wonderland: Say what you mean or mean what you say.

Well, Christianity is a different religion, isn't it? — Apollodorus

Yes, but these are supposed to be the words of Jesus. Jesus was not a Christian. His disciples certainly would not have understood it that way. This was a major reason why Paul and his followers split off from the disciples. Paul tells us all about it. Or at least his side of the story.

(Jews and Muslims are also welcome to offer their own views if they have any.) — Apollodorus

How about the way one particular Jew might have understood his own words and how he wanted them to be understood? One thing is certain: he died before the advent of Paul's Christianity.

It isn't my fault that you don't like Christians. — Apollodorus

No, it is your fault that you make false assumptions.

And what "Jewish rabbi" are you talking about anyway? — Apollodorus

Are you not familiar with Jesus of Nazareth? Or as you might call him, following Paul, Jesus Christ.

However, well-being includes spiritual well-being and that is achieved by following the teachings of the Gospels. — Apollodorus

This is not what you said in your earlier post:

This suggests that an essential aspect of Christian love is not as some might assume having an attitude of affection, etc. toward our neighbor or even concern for his material wellbeing, but primarily concern for his or her spiritual salvation. — Apollodorus

Your claim was that material well-being is not an essential aspect, You excluded material well-being, but the passages I quote show that it cannot be excluded.

I am not claiming that proclaiming the good news is not part of Christianity. I am, however, claiming that the passages cited are about material well-being. They say nothing about proselytizing.

The passages do not say anything about the teachings of the Gospels either. The teaching is summed up in the passages cited as well as others that contain the same message: 1) Love God 2) Love your neighbor. It is typical Christian chauvinism to take the teachings of a Jewish rabbi and make them into something they are not. But that is, after all, what the term Christian is all about.

But who is the Christian's neighbor? — baker

The story of the good Samaritan provides an answer, but it is evident that it is not one that most Christians live by.

So, your conclusion is that because it's an embodied person who does the reporting, it follows that disembodied existence is not true or couldn't happen? — Sam26

The point is that the report of an embodied person does not stand as evidence of a disembodied person.

how could an embodied person report on something I believe is not possible. — Sam26

What is it that you do not think is possible?

Just because someone can't answer all the questions of how it's possible, — Sam26

It is not simply a matter of explaining how it is possible but of giving a coherent account of whatever it is that inhabits or is tied to a body but is somehow separate from it. Whatever it is that perceives and feels and yet is not a body.

Instead of "all the questions" just one crucial one: if you eliminate the body how does whatever is left perceive the world?

Yes, it's me that gets hungry and feels pain, etc, and it would be me as a disembodied being who would feel some of the same things. — Sam26

And yet when you are hungry it is the food you ingest, the food you take into your body, that satisfies your hunger. If you hit your hand with a hammer is it merely coincidence that your hand is damaged while you hurt?

Hess associates Christian love with “sharing knowledge of God with the whole world”. This suggests that an essential aspect of Christian love is not as some might assume having an attitude of affection, etc. toward our neighbor or even concern for his material wellbeing, but primarily concern for his or her spiritual salvation. — Apollodorus

This is how Hess understands it, but it is not the gospels say. Given Jesus' emphasis on the Law we should see what is said there:

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)

In Mark there is a distinction made between love of God and love of your neighbor. Two separate commandments:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' (12:30

The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (12:31)

In Matthew:

If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. Which ones?" he inquired. Jesus replied, "'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'19:17 - 19)

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (22:37-39)

Again two commandments one greater than the other.

In Luke we find the first commandment to love the Lord your God, followed by the tale of the good Samaritan.

He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. (10:34)

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."(10:36-37)

In Romans:

The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (13:9)

Luke and Romans clearly show that love of your neighbor means concern for your neighbors well being. Nothing is said about spreading the "good news".

an OBE — Sam26

It is always an embodied person who has an alleged out of body experience. It is always an embodied person who related their experience.

The only way it wouldn't make conceptual sense is if it's not logically possible to be disembodied. — Sam26

What does it mean to be disembodied? Who or what is it that is without a body? "You"? Is it not you who gets hungry? You who feels pain? You who feels loves and desires? What would such things be for a disembodied you? Is it not you but a body that somehow happens to be yours that experiences these things?

So the language has a word with no meaning and no application. — god must be atheist

That is not the case. The word means different things to different people.

quote="god must be atheist;531529"]Maybe the word has a meaning, or a conceptual meaning, but no application.[/quote]

Some people call someone who knows some fact or how to do something or made a choice that turned out well or is shrewd is wise. Some apply the term to those who give what they consider good council. At least one says that it is accumulated insights.

... you categorically deny that anyone possesses this quality. — god must be atheist

What I have in mind is knowledge of the whole. But it may be unwise for me to think this.[

quote="god must be atheist;531529"]You don't know what wise is. So you may be wise,[/quote]

But if I was wise I would think I would know both what wisdom is and that I was wise.

ergo, you can't know whether you are in possession of wisdom, or else if you are wise, or not. — god must be atheist

Doesn't my confusion suggest that I am not wise?

Saying you don't know what "wise" is, but you'd know if/when you were wise, is not logical. Inasmuch as it could be true, or not be true, but is not necessarily true. — god must be atheist

Yes, I assume that if I was wise I would know I was wise since I think it would include self-knowledge. But what do I know?

since you deny any knowledge by anyone to know what being wise is, you can or anyone else could, be wise, and nobody would recognize he or she is, because there is no knowledge what it is, therefore there is no way of recognizing it when encountering it as someone's quality in real life. — god must be atheist

I agree. It some ways it is like Dostoevsky's The Idiot.

but i don't think you think that. — god must be atheist

Don't think what? I am interpreting a story. I don't think that any of this actually happened. I don't think the storytellers did either.

you are not counter-arguing — god must be atheist

I honestly do not know what you mean. A counter-argument to what?

If you have issues with my responses to you or lack of responses feel free to send me a message.

Thank you for being lectured by you in a paraphrased form by telling me what I had just expressed. — god must be atheist

I am puzzled by the fact that you think that what I said was a paraphrase of what you said.

But once in a while it would be nice to hear from you, "Yes, you're right." — god must be atheist

But I do not know that you are right. I gave you three reasons why I think you might be wrong. That what they did was not called sin because the authors of the story did not regard it as such.

Because the word sin appeared in the story of Cain and Abel, one -- at least I think so -- can't deny that the concepts had been already in place before such moment as the concept was named a unique name. — god must be atheist

It is the storyteller who uses the concept and name. My point is that Adam and Eve did not have that concept of sin, they were innocents without knowledge of good and bad. For may be for this reason the storyteller did not use it to name their act.

I appreciate that the Hebrew word for sin was not used, maybe, but the concept was coined right there and then. Is that true, or not true? — god must be atheist

Three points. The fact that the term was not used may not be insignificant. Second, if they did not know good and bad then in their innocence they did not sin. They would have no concept of sin. Third, it was only through their seduction, their disobedience, their desire for wisdom (3:6), the blessing of procreation (to know), and so on, it seems to me it differs from the path Cain chose.

All of this is meant to be suggestive. I do not insist that it is correct.

The first occurrence of the term usually translated as 'sin' - Hebrew: חָטָא) is at Genesis 4:6-7

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

There is no mention here of original sin, or inherited sin, or being born in sin, or being powerless against sin.

Not doing what is right is not called sin, sin appears to follow from not doing right. In this context I think this means something like heading in the wrong direction, taking a dangerous path. The ways of man is a central concern of the Hebrew Bible. The path we take is our own choice.

Immediately after this warning Cain kills his brother Abel. Cain is angry because God looked favorably on Abel's offering but not on his own. His anger toward his brother is the first step in the wrong direction and leads to murder.

Perhaps colonising another planet would suit you. — bert1

I suspect that is where he is from.

"You" as the general "you"? — god must be atheist

You as in those with a passionate desire for wisdom who know that they are not wise.

I think wisdom is a set of accumulated insights ... — god must be atheist

If I was wise I would know what it is, but I ain't. This in not modesty. I don't think anyone else is wise either.

So what I didn't make clear is that this is all me. — frank

That had crossed my mind, but with your mention of Plato, Meno, Phaedo, and anamnesis I took it that you were discussing the dialogue.

So from my point of view, you're continually trying to teach me my own argument and nitpicking at the edges. — frank

That was not my intention. My remarks were all made with regard to the attempt to understand Plato's Meno. Perhaps in my eagerness to discuss Plato I missed what you were doing. My apologies.

You had asserted that the infinite backward chain makes knowledge impossible.

Now you're just noting that Plato says the soul does learn. — frank

From my previous posts:

This would mean an eternal regress to past lives, there could be no life that was not a recollection from a previous life, so no life in which knowledge of the Forms first gained. — Fooloso4

The problem is that if we start with the premise that knowledge is recollection then there would never be a time when knowledge was learned. But it cannot be recollected if it had not at some time first been learned. — Fooloso4

My gripe was that you're tossing "impossible" around a little too freely. — frank

I think it follows from the argument. Knowledge is recollection of what was learned in a previous life, but if it was learned then it could not have been in that case that knowledge was recollected. This a starting point. Recollection then is not an infinite backward chain. At some point each of us had to first learn if there is from that time forward recollection of what was learned.

Anamnesis is not part of the myth of reincarnation passed down by priests. — frank

Anamnesis (recollection) refers to what was learned in a previous life and can now be recollected. Without reincarnation there can be no anamnesis.

It's Plato's solution to a problem: that teaching is frequently a matter of bringing a person's awareness to what they already know. — frank

There is a difference between already know and known via an infinite regress.

Ah yeah, the age-old difference between living philosophically and making a living from philosophy (or philosophers and sophists). — 180 Proof

Thoreau talks about this in Walden:

There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers.

Well, not all activities on here are called 'philosophy' are they ? — Amity

So as not to give offense to the illustrious philosophers on this forum I will leave this question unanswered.

Why? Why not an infinite chain of recollectors? — frank

But this is not Socrates argument. See Meno 81c-d:

Since the soul has been born into this world many times, and has thus been seeing
the things of this world and the world below, there is nothing it has not learned. No wonder then that it can recollect about aretê and other things, since it knew about these things before; for all nature being akin, and the soul having learned all things; nothing hinders someone, recalling (or, as people call it, learning) one thing only, from discovering all the rest himself, if only he has some courage and does not completely weary of seeking; for the whole of seeking and learning is recollection.

The argument requires having at some time previous to this life learning what is to be recollected.

Why do you keep calling anamnesis a myth? — frank

See 81a-b:

For I have heard from men and women wise in divine
matters…
MENO: Saying what?
SOCRATES: True things, it seems to me, and kalon.
MENO: What was it and who were the speakers?
SOCRATES: Some of the speakers were priests and priestesses, who had studied
how they might give an account of the holy things in their care: Pindar speaks of it also, and many other of the poets are in touch with divine things. What they say is this (consider whether it seems to you that they speak the truth): They declare that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time it has an end, which they call dying, and at another time is born again, but it is never completely destroyed.

Mythos is something told without logos, that is, without providing an account or defense. This is part of Socrates criticism of the poets. They are the mouthpiece of the Muses, reporting what they have heard but being unable to explain it.

I don't think the infinite regress would make knowledge impossible. — frank

The problem is that if we start with the premise that knowledge is recollection then there would never be a time when knowledge was learned. But it cannot be recollected if it had not at some time first
been learned.

It's that Plato's argument implodes, not that knowledge is impossuble. — frank

The failure of the argument indicates that knowledge is not possible if knowledge is recollection. Plato offers no way past this aporia. This is not to say that knowledge is impossible, but that it is not possible based on the premise that it is recollection.

With regard to reincarnation it means that if there is reincarnation the myth of recollection does not support it since it cannot even support its own claims.

Once again, you're telling me what I told you. — frank

This is what you said:

If your innate knowledge comes from a previous life, then either the chain of people is infinite, or there was an 'Adam' who learned without previous lives. — frank

Now it may be clear to you but based on what you said it may not be clear to others that an infinite regress makes knowledge impossible.

There can be no Adam who gained knowledge without previous lives if knowledge is recollection from previous lives. This too makes knowledge impossible.

"Eternal" sometimes means atemporal. Are you familiar with that idea? — frank

How can there be atemporal recollection of what is learned in a previous life? How can there be a previous life that is not in time? What does previous mean atemporally?

You suggest an Adam, but if knowledge is recollection there would have been no previous life to recollect. Hence knowledge cannot be recollection.

I don't see how there can be recollection without some prior life that is recollected.

Anamnesis is that connection to the eternal. — frank

This would mean an eternal regress to past lives, there could be no life that was not a recollection from a previous life, so no life in which knowledge of the Forms first gained.

It is instructive to compare the myth of recollection of the Forms with intellection of the Forms. It is curious that in the Republic knowledge of the Forms occurs through direct apprehension of them with the mind in the present, but the discussion of past lives in the Republic says nothing about knowledge of the Forms through recollection.

If your innate knowledge comes from a previous life, then either the chain of people is infinite, or there was an 'Adam' who learned without previous lives. — frank

Good point. But if there was this Adam then the myth of anamnesis cannot be taken too seriously, because it would not then rely on recollection from a previous life.

The single best work on this is Jacob Klein's Commentary on Plato's Meno. It is a powerful example of how to read a Platonic dialogue.

Nevertheless, the prevailing view of the Phaedo is that Socrates accepts, and argues in favour of, the immortality of the soul, even if he admits he doesn't necessarily understand the soul's destiny. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is the prevailing view and it had a strong influence on Christianity, but follow the arguments rather than prevailing opinion if you want to see what is really going on. But if you are going to do so I suggest you use a good translation such as West's Four Texts on Socrates. His commentary is pretty good too.

Nevertheless, the prevailing view of the Phaedo is that Socrates accepts, and argues in favour of, the immortality of the soul, even if he admits he doesn't necessarily understand the soul's destiny. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is the prevailing view and it had a strong influence on Christianity, but follow the arguments rather than prevailing opinion if you want to see what is really going on. But if you are going to do so I suggest you use a good translation such as West's Four Texts on Socrates. His commentary is pretty good too.

@180 Proof

That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone. This is the whole of Torah and the rest is commentary. Go study it. — Hillel the Elder, 1st c. BCE

I thought you might post this.

Confucius — 180 Proof

And glad to see this as well.

Here's the question again: what is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

This is the question, and it has no philosophically satisfactory answer.

Nothing has changed since Socrates addressed this in the Phaedo. He gives two answers. The first is the one that will quiet the "childish fears" of his friends by presenting myths, metaphors, and arguments that appear to prove the continued existence of the soul after death. Only to those who can follow the arguments carefully enough he also points out how all the arguments fail. This leads to his second answer, which has two parts: a) we do not know what will happen, and more troubling to those who wish to preserve hope, b) there is no coherent idea or concept of the individual soul that is not tied to an actual individual. The question itself then is incoherent.

The same problem arises with those who replace soul with energy or consciousness.

Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. — NOS4A2

Yes, I can understand how it might appear that way to you when you shut your eyes and ignore the refutations that have been given.

You are like the person who has been checkmated but thinks he has not lost because he continues to move pieces around.

Mathematical objects were for Plato hypothetical. This does not mean that he denied they existed but that the mathematician does not know them directly. She relies on reason, images, and the imagination.

Plato's mathematicians do not ask about the ontology, that is, the existence of mathematical objects. The mathematical Platonist asserts their existence.

I was merely explaining theory of state formation — NOS4A2

You have not presented a theory of state formation.

... formed by conquest and confiscation — NOS4A2

This is not a theory of state formation. It is what a band of marauders do.

... tacitly threatening me if I was to act on it. — NOS4A2

Pointing to the consequences of your actions is not a threat. The fact that I would play no part in those consequences means that I am not threatening you, tacitly or otherwise.

you submit what I wrote to contextomy — NOS4A2

This is a common retreat tactic when the argument fails.

... while avoiding any and all arguments I present. — NOS4A2

I will let the record speak for itself.

I never suggested disobedience to the state. — NOS4A2

Really? You said:

Your obedience is apparent. But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice. — NOS4A2

Are you saying that you too are obedient to questionable authority, but it is not apparent? Is it that your obedience is not apparent? Why are you obedient when law and authority mean nothing?

I never suggested all conquest and confiscation in history was the result of the state. — NOS4A2

No, you didn't. You presented your "theory" about the formation of the state. I pointed out that these things predate the state. In other words, if they already occurred then how can they explain the formation of the state?

So I no longer care about your analysis of what I wrote. — NOS4A2

Okay, we can leave it here.

Let's look back to what you previously said:

Your obedience is apparent. But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice. — NOS4A2

And prior to that:

I don’t want my governments to be efficient and effective—welding people in their apartments is efficient and effective. I just want them to leave me alone. — NOS4A2

And:

Should I meddle in your life because what you do affects others? — NOS4A2

Once again you shift from one thing to another. We were talking about what occurs today, here and now, your desire to be left alone, your disregard for how this might affect others,"my governments", the laws and authority as they exist today, how they are abused and lead to injustice. Rather than defend those claims you shift to what happened in the past.

Conquest and confiscation is a significant part of human history and is not the result of "the state". Such activities predate the state.

Do you imagine that through disobedience to the state you are rectifying the wrongs of the past? That somehow you are making restitution?

That was my poor writing. I was trying to say your conclusion about my conclusion was absent any example or reason, implying you were guilty of that which you accused me of. — NOS4A2

I think it is more a matter of your poor thinking. You made a claim about all states. It is up to you to defend that claim. You did not.

More examples ... — NOS4A2

Once again, more examples are not examples of every state.

Any counter examples? — NOS4A2

Sure. The United States.