Imagine someone doing something that is a right listed in the Constitution. You have every right to do the thing they’re doing. Would you want to stamp out their ability to practice that activity? If you’re successful, you are giving up that right as well. Here’s an interesting video where people clamor to give up one of their first-amendment rights.
We need a thousand times as many first-amendment auditors to hold government accountable. We need people to dig into all the boring budgets and minutiae to expose wasteful and crooked government practices. People shouldn’t be mad at this guy, but thanking him for what he does. The purpose of the freedom of the press isn’t just to protect photography but to protect people’s right to hold the government’s feet to the fire. Photography is really just one of the most obvious and low-hanging fruits of the freedom of the press. Imagine how pissed off some of these government goons will get when they think some youtube dude is about to find out their scam they’ve been getting away with for years.
Of course, almost everyone has been educated by the government so no one knows their rights. Government has a vested interest in keeping people ignorant and apathetic about their rights.
Bernie Sanders posted a video that wasn’t worth watching a couple days before the election last Tuesday. It was not worth watching at the time and it’s certainly not worth it now that it’s obsolete. I did watch it so I wanted to leave a comment in the off-chance that someone might read it and it lead to an interesting, but sad conversation with a socialist. Here’s the conversation:
Me: Abortion is murder. Bernie Sanders is a greedy socialist.
———————————–
Socialist: Well I am a socialist
———————————–
Me: You’re not entitled to anything that belongs to anyone else.
———————————–
Socialist: Okay, but rich people are allowed to own millions of dollars while other people die out of poverty and hunger?
———————————–
Me: Yes. You wanting to help the poor doesn’t entitle you to anyone’s money. Socialism causes more poverty, not less.
———————————–
Socialist: Okay…Let me put this straight: As long as people die due poverty and hunger no one is entilted to have more than they need to ensure their survival. Rich people have no right to spend the money which the poor normally need
———————————–
Me: If it was as simple as simple as walking up to someone and giving them money, there are so many charities and millions of people that would gladly do that. If you know of someone who is on the verge of starvation, I will give them money for food right now. Who are you talking about who is dying of hunger?
———————————–
Socialist: I am talking about people all over the world. I know shocking, but I also don’t think in random chosen national borders. People die out of hunger in many places on this planet. And as long as this is happening no rich person has a right to keep their money for themselves
———————————–
Me: Bernie Sanders is opposed to open borders. I can give you the video where he says that if you like. Socialists are opposed to open borders because they want to control the labor market and trade.
You keep saying there are people starving, but I don’t know who you’re referring to. The only people in the world who are starving that I know of are Venezuelans who are victims of socialism. Wherever people are starving it’s because of government abuse (socialism) and a lack of freedom (capitalism).
You may not like that everyone is free to do with their money what they want. Everyone will give an account to God for what they do with their money to God on Judgment Day. But you wanting to force rich people to do what you want with their money is you being covetous and greedy.
———————————–
Socialist: By the way I am excited about your explanation why socialism would cause more poverty?
———————————–
Me: Wherever socialism has been tried, it has failed miserably such as the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. Socialists like to argue that Scandinavian countries have socialism. The U.S. also has plenty of socialist programs, but the U.S. and Scandinavian countries can mess around with socialist programs because they can fund them with wealth that comes from the free markets. Voluntary charity is far superior to socialist programs.
I can give you a hundred reasons why socialism doesn’t work, but the issue is that it is based on theft, covetousness and greed. Maybe the more admirable socialists covet healthcare, food and housing for everyone, rather than nuclear weapons. But confiscating someone’s property for a good cause is still theft.
Socialists are evil and greedy, even if they want to steal people’s money to give it to someone in need.
I had a conversation with a Mormon about how there is no such thing as eternal marriage. Jesus clearly taught that there is no marriage in heaven. Joseph Smith completely made up eternal marriage. Here’s the conversation:
Me: It’s all made up. Jesus specifically said that there is no marriage in heaven. Marriage isn’t eternal.
Sonja: No, he did not say that specifically. I think uou have some confusion on some Bible verses going on.
Me: The Sadducees asked about a woman who was married on earth, and who she will be married to in heaven. Jesus said there will be no marriage; we will be like the angels (Matthew 22:30). He’s clearly and specifically teaching that there will be no marriage in eternity. Joseph Smith was a false prophet who contradicts obvious teachings of the Bible. You believe in an idolatrous version of Christ who can’t save you from your sins.
Sonja: He was saying marriage would not take place in heaven. I think you are misinterpreting that verse. Notice he answers, “IN THE RESURRECTION” there will be no marriage performed.
Me: He said that a lady that was married on earth will be single in heaven, like the angels.
Sonja: That is not my interpretation.
Me: then your interpretation is false.
Sonja: That’s pretty arrogant. And unChristlike.
Me: It’s very judgmental of you to call me arrogant and unChristlike.
Should I really be shocked that my junior high gym teacher is a socialist? It was a long time ago that I was in junior high and all the run-ins I’ve had with my former teachers have been horrendous. I’ve had an online conversation with a teacher who hates the Bible. I tried to witness to a high school teacher on the street who was half drunk and hostile to the gospel. And now my junior high teacher goes public as a coveter.
She wrote a letter to the editor endorsing raising taxes for a swimming pool. If you support forcing people to pay for a swimming pool because you want a swimming pool, you’re committing the sin of covetousness.
Here’s the craziest line in the whole thing. Char Lindner says, “But this is a time to sacrifice and spend my money on doing what is for the greater good of all and stop thinking of myself.”
She wants a pool and she’s willing to pay for the pool so to stop thinking about herself she want everyone to be forced to pay for a pool whether they like it or not. It seems she is thinking only of herself. She doesn’t care about anyone but herself and she doesn’t care what the minority of voters think.
“For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Ephesians 5:5).
We went to an event where a large church in town had a fall fair type of thing with games for the kids. They had a crane set up in the parking lot where they were flying a large American flag. Is this appropriate? What is the point they’re trying to make?
First off, I don’t think they’ve thought it through like I have. They are proud of America and they want to fly the flag. While maybe they haven’t thought about it as much as I have, they went through the effort of getting a huge flag and getting a crane. All of this while there was tons of effort going into getting ready for a complicated event. I would encourage them to think about it as I don’t think it’s defensible for any Christian who has thought about it.
The most obvious thing to me is that Americans have murdered 65 million babies since Roe v. Wade. The government has failed to do what they are ordained by God to do, which is punish murderers (Romans 13:4). 65 million murdered babies is about 10 times the number of Jews killed in Nazi Germany. What will it take before we stop supporting the government? Is it 100 million dead babies, 200 million? Where’s the line?
The next thing is that we are to seek first the kingdom of God. Most Christians don’t even know what that means. God’s kingdom has a king and we are citizens of that kingdom. We are to identify more with God’s kingdom than with any earthly kingdom. I would feel more affinity towards a foreigner who was a Christian than for an American atheist, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc.
We are to be more concerned with seeing God’s kingdom grow and His justice be done on earth than we are with advancing America.
I don’t see any defense for flying an American flag at a church at all.
I’m perplexed by the behavior of Christians I know, especially the men. I’m a theonomist. Theonomy is trying to apply all of Scripture to all of life. We reject the idea that the Bible doesn’t talk about politics. I have tried to engage Christians in conversation on biblical topics many times. I’ve tried in person. I’ve tried passing out pamphlets about theonomy in church. I’ve tried on Facebook. I’ve tried to be nice. I’ve tried to be provocative. I tried to get them to go witnessing with me. I taught a Way of the Master class and about 15 people attended. A few went witnessing, but no one stuck with it or ended up coming with us weekly.
No one has ever really engaged with my theonomic arguments. Some have said they agree with me but haven’t really seemed to dive into all the implications of applying the Bible to politics and all of life. Some have opposed what I’ve said, almost all of them women. But none of them have carried on with the discussion. They say I disagree, and some have even explained why they disagree, but they don’t carry on with the conversation. The men have almost all remained silent. A couple days ago, one didn’t remain silent, but didn’t explain why and refuses to carry on the conversation. Here’s that “discussion”. I left a comment on a newspaper article about raising taxes for a swimming pool.
My initial comment consisted of four sentences. Which of the sentences did he disagree with? The first two sentences are absolute statements of fact, so he can’t disagree with that. The third follows from Romans 13:3-4, and all of the Old Testament. The fourth follows logically from the first three sentences. It all seems pretty obvious and true to me.
On one hand, him disagreeing is more than I get from 90% of Calvary Chapel men. On the other hand, why is he not willing to explain himself? Does he not know Scripture? If that’s so, why would he comment? Is he scared of arguing in public? Then why say anything at all? He wants to take a stand and go public as not agreeing while not being in any way capable of defending his position.
I think all of this behavior from these people comes from two errors. 1. Having a false understanding Romans 13. 2. Having a false eschatology (end times view)–premillennialism.
They have been taught the bootlicking interpretation of Romans 13 over and over. They think the government has a blank check to do what it wants. Their pessimistic eschatology teaches that they will be defeated more and more soundly until they are raptured. So, they expect to lose and so they don’t apply Christian ethics to government. I’ve tried to explain this all many times and no one really seems to care. My arguments from Scripture apparently aren’t overcoming their pessimistic presuppositions.
A friend said this about Christianity in public schools:
“I’m a Christian and am against mandatory Bible teaching in PUBLIC school (for it at private Christian schools).“
“You’re probably referring to the 2023 bill a couple idiotic senators introduced that would require all schools to display the ten commandments. This never made it from the senate.“
Public schools are funded by forcing people to pay for them, and shouldn’t exist at all.
Every institution whether it’s a government institution or not should be submitted to Christ as Lord. You can’t have education that ignores Christ or pretends to be neutral as there is no such thing as neutrality towards Christ (Matt 12:30). You’re either for Him or against Him. When public schools or government feign neutrality, they’re actually opposing Christ.
Any institution that isn’t submitted to Christ is actually opposed to Christ and its purpose can be shown to be absurd, self-contradictory or unintelligible. If you’re going to open a strip club, it better be submitted to Christ. That sounds every but as absurd as having a public school submitted to Christ. At least a strip club has willing supporters as opposed to public schools who get their funds by threatening to confiscate people’s property.
Here’s a quick conversation I had with a Christian acquaintance. I posted about how voting for a tax increase is committing the sin of covetousness. I can’t remember ever getting a good argument against that. Here’s another terrible argument.
Her first argument is that voting for a tax increase isn’t covetousness because I don’t live in Canon City. The second response isn’t really an argument at all, just alleging that I’m a heretic without giving any reason at all. But she supports my First Amendment right to spread heresy. That certainly wouldn’t be my response if someone I knew was spreading heresy.
Her next comment is just to quote Romans 13. This happens so often that I coined this term a few years ago. I’m hoping the verb to “romansthirteen” someone catches on some day.
Romans 13, when properly understood, is dynamite laid at the foundation of tyrannical government. I would love it if as Romans 13 teaches, government left people doing good alone and pursued as criminals those who did something to earn God’s wrath.
Of course, no response to an actual explanation of what Romans 13 teaches except a laughing emoji. I think I’ve been Romansthirteened about 20 times by Calvary Chapel people.
Can someone please get these people some brain cells to rub together so I can have an actual conversation at some point? I don’t say that to sound pompous. I am the most humble man alive. The only reason I’m right is because I believe what the Bible teaches.
_______________________________________________________________________________The rest of this is the original post I wrote, to which she was responding:
Voting for a tax increase for a swimming pool is committing the sin of covetousness (the Tenth Commandment, Exodus 20:17). Coveting is wanting something to the point that you’re willing to get it by dishonest means.
Taxes are collected by government threatening to confiscate property or threatening imprisonment. What you are advocating when you vote for a tax increase is more violence, or at least threats of violence from government. I realize it rarely comes to violence, because most people would rather just pay than suffer serious loss. A mugger says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you.” That is exactly what government does to collect taxes, except they do it through the mail and it takes longer. Voting is not a magic ritual that turns stealing into righteous taxation. Voting is just an attempt of a majority to force a minority to do something they don’t want to do.
If you are willing to pay for a pool, you’re free to do that. Rather than coveting, why don’t those who want a pool do honest work and raise money for it?
Often I espouse some principle that is a basic truth of Christianity and a basic truth of America’s founding and people oppose it outright and call me a liberal, even those who are in Facebook TEA Party groups who are supposed to be fans of America’s founding. I can assure you I’m not a liberal. Here is a quick list of some of America’s founding principles and the implications that “conservatives” hate.
1. Rights come from God.
Hated implication A: Immigrants have the same rights as Americans. How can you abuse immigrants or even joke about killing them at the border as I’ve seen many people do? (And I actually don’t think they were joking.) Hated implication B: If you reject God, there is no basis for rights at all. Any rights you may have could only come from men. In reality, our rights are to do whatever is not a sin (Romans 13:3-4).
2. Government is subject to the law.
Hated implication A: Cops are not above the law. Cops have to obey the law. Hated implication B: You better know the law and your rights because men have died for those rights and surrendering your rights is disrespecting their sacrifice. Stop licking boots.
3. Liberty is more important than life.
Hated implication A: Freedom is worth dying for. Ben Franklin said those who would give up freedom for security are worthy of neither. Hated implication B: If people doing legal activities make you mad, sorry, but life is tough.
4. Killing tyrants is perfectly acceptable.
Hated implication: You realize that the founding fathers were killing police, right?
5. People are to keep government accountable and within the bounds of the Constitution.
Hated implication: How in the world could we expect children who are educated by the government to keep government accountable? Don’t send your kids to public school.
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
