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.
They’ve been talking about peak oil for a long time. Do you remember invading Kuwait and how important it was to keep oil flowing to the U.S.? Do you remember when the U.S. was a net importer of oil. Then, came the fracking miracle. We are now an oil exporter due to fracking and being able to access oil that was unreachable before. Natural gas is a byproduct and is so cheap that they burn it off.
I recently learned the same thing has happened with nickel production. Nickel is found in two different host environments: laterite or sulphide. In the past, sulphide deposits were much more useful. But advances in metallurgy have made laterite deposits useful as well. The price of nickel has gone from $22 per pound in 2007 to $8 per pound today.
Many unbelievers think that the earth is a closed system and that humans are animals that are destroying the earth. Christians (especially postmillennialists) believe that God is in control and is actively involved in taking care of humanity. As the gospel spreads, righteous thinking and hard work will be blessed by God and He will provide for humanity and that everything is a gift from God.
Therefore, we are to do the right thing according to God’s Word and leave the consequences to Him. We are to worry more about freedom than safety. We are to care more about justice than we are to play on people’s fears.
If a typical dietitian gives you a recommendation, you should probably do the opposite. Listen to this corporate spokesperson aka government-approved dietitian, and then start researching the carnivore diet.
Presidential politics is a joke and an idol for too many Christians. I have not paid any attention to Trump’s trial and I don’t care. It is much more fruitful to participate in local politics. I can talk to my city councilman or county commissioner, but I will likely never have a meeting with the president where I can explain my opinion on an issue.
However, what Texas governor, Greg Abbot, said about the verdict is interesting. He said, “This was a sham show trial. The Kangaroo Court will never stand on appeal.”
I have a couple questions about that. 1. If Abbot actually believed that, what action should he take? 2. If a New York court is a Kangaroo Court, is it so far-fetched that a Texas court might be a Kangaroo Court?
1. If there is a Kangaroo court in America, we need to do something serious about that. That is totally unconscionable. I believe that almost all American courts are Kangaroo Courts. That’s why I’m a secessionist and an anarchist. You will never reliably get justice from a system that rejects Christ as Lord.
2. There are plenty of liberal places in Texas. Does he think there is no court in Texas where a jury might reach the same verdict? I think it’s very likely that there are liberal courts and places in Texas that would have convicted Trump. The issue here is, now Abbot has things he can actually do about that. What is he doing?
I had a conversation on Facebook with a guy who said he’s a federal agent. As the conversation went on, I started to think more and more that he’s actually a guy who works at the checkpoints. It started out with me posting this meme in the comments of a Facebook post. Here’s the conversation.
Fed: if you think BP checkpoints infringe on your freedoms than you’re a moron plain amd simple. Everybody wants freedom until they have to do their small part to maintain it then they cry like you. Cry harder
Me: How are checkpoints maintaining freedom?
Fed: checkpoints take drugs off the streets and limit the flow of illegals traveling northbound into the interior. They have a good success rate with daily seizures and captures. You wanna live in a drug free society. You want your kids to not be kidnapped and trafficked for sex that kind of security isn’t fee. It requires you to spend about 3 seconds of your life answering a question. Hardly an infringement and btw the supreme court already ruled that nothing done at BP checkpoints is unconstitutional. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. A tiny sacrifice that allows agents 1 more chance to find bad things. And btw it’s hundreds of pounds a week in narcotics
Me: your comment is exactly what the meme is responding to. You beg to give up your God-given freedoms because you’re scared.
Fed: what God given right do checkpoints take away? Scared lol. Look bud I’m a federal agent. Instead first hand what comes across the border and instead the statistics. If you think it’s family units lookikg for jobs and better lives you are foolishly naive. Military age males describe about 9 out 10 brush apprehensions. Hundreds of pounds of fentanyl and heroin, meth, etc trafficked in and seiezed. If you think drug seizures and pedophiles being arrested is a bad thing just say so. El Salvador amd Venezuela have no room in their prisons so they release ppl and send them north. Murderers, rapists, cartel members, all coming here to exploit American freedom while “men” like you say bizz words like scared to justify your argument.
Me: You’re a federal agent? It’s hard to get someone to see the truth whose paycheck depends on him not seeing the truth. The Supreme Court has ruled that black people can be enslaved and babies can be murdered in their mothers’ wombs. I have zero respect for that bunch of weirdos in black dresses.
What rights do checkpoints take away? My right to travel without being forced to answer questions.
Drug seizures are a bad thing. We learned from prohibition that making alcohol illegal was a bad idea. There was all kinds of violence resulting from prohibition that we don’t see anymore. There are drawbacks to legal alcohol, but giving away freedoms for socialist, big-government programs is a bad idea.
If we put checkpoints all over the place and stopped people, we could catch a lot of bad guys. That would be unconstitutional. Why is something that would be unconstitutional in Nebraska, constitutional because it’s within 100 miles of the border?
On the border, just as with all big-government, socialist programs, there are unintended consequences. Immigrants are forced to sneak across the border. It’s hard to sneak through the desert with a family. If the border were open, there would be problems, but God won’t bless a nation that trusts in socialism and giving away their freedoms. We are to do the right thing and leave the consequences to God.
Fed: checkpoints take drugs off the streets and limit the flow of illegals traveling northbound into the interior. They have a good success rate with daily seizures and captures. You wanna live in a drug free society. You want your kids to not be kidnapped amd trafficked for sex that kind of security isn’t fee. It requires you to spend about 3 seconds of your life answering a question. Hardly an infringement and btw the supreme court already ruled that nothing done at BP checkpoints is unconstitutional. Ask not what your country can do for you butbwhay you can do for your country. A tiny sacrifice that allows agents 1 more chance to find bad things. And btw it’s hundreds of pounds a week in narcotics
Me: your comment is exactly what the meme is responding to. You beg to give up your God-given freedoms because you’re scared.
Fed: what God given right do checkpoints take away? Scared lol. Look bud I’m a federal agent. Instead first hand what comes across the border and instead the statistics. If you think it’s family units lookikg for jobs and better lives you are foolishly naive. Military age males describe about 9 out 10 brush apprehensions. Hundreds of pounds of fentanyl and heroin, meth, etc trafficked in and seiezed. If you think drug seizures and pedophiles being arrested is a bad thing just say so. El Salvador amd Venezuela have no room in their prisons so they release ppl and send them north. Murderers, rapists, cartel members, all coming here to exploit American freedom while “men” like you say bizz words like scared to justify your argument.
Me: You’re a federal agent? It’s hard to get someone to see the truth whose paycheck depends on him not seeing the truth. The Supreme Court has ruled that black people can be enslaved and babies can be murdered in their mothers’ wombs. I have zero respect for that bunch of weirdos in black dresses.
What rights do checkpoints take away? My right to travel without being forced to answer questions.
Drug seizures are a bad thing. We learned from prohibition that making alcohol illegal was a bad idea. There was all kinds of violence resulting from prohibition that we don’t see anymore. There are drawbacks to legal alcohol, but giving away freedoms for socialist, big-government programs is a bad idea.
If we put checkpoints all over the place and stopped people, we could catch a lot of bad guys. That would be unconstitutional. Why is something that would be unconstitutional in Nebraska, constitutional because it’s within 100 miles of the border?
On the border, just as with all big-government, socialist programs, there are unintended consequences. Immigrants are forced to sneak across the border. It’s hard to sneak through the desert with a family. If the border were open, there would be problems, but God won’t bless a nation that trusts in socialism and giving away their freedoms. We are to do the right thing and leave the consequences to God.
Fed: if you think open borders is a good idea than there’s no point in continuing a discussion. You are clearly far beyond naive. Even with these relaxed border policies we are facing cities like El Paso are in a state of emergency. Homeless shelters are maxed out out. Illegal immigrants recieving NTA papers get more money than American Citizens on SNAP. I believe in God as well but this is why there is a separation between church and state because not everybody believes in God and the honor system doesn’t work. In countries like Venezuela and Guatemala child sdx trafficking and rape is prevalent and now that problem comes here. Also comparing drugs and alcohol is absurd. Beer and liquor can certainly be consumed I’m moderation without issue but fentanyl cannot. Heroin cannot. Methamphetamine cannot. I’d these checkpoints weren’t successful they would close. Deemed a waste of money but because we find so much stuff we continue to operate. So again you things taking drugs off the street is bad cool. You think locking up child abductors is bad cool. When an illegal migrant rapes a family member of yours don’t cry about it.
Me: open borders was one of America’s founding principles. Your argument is with the founding fathers.
Like I said from the beginning, you’re touting how dangerous these people are and how we need to surrender our rights for safety. I don’t mean you’re personally scared but you’re fear-mongering.
You can separate Christianity and state. You can’t separate religion and state. The only question is which god will be the god of the system?
Why are checkpoints that would be unconstitutional in Nebraska be constitutional within 100 miles of the border?
Fed: it’s not fear mongering if the threat is real and credible. DHS doesn’t just make up numbers for fun and I see the seizures first hand. The issue is that an uptick in sexual assault, assault, and theft has occurred in border towns and border states since we relaxed the standards at the border and canceled the remaining in Mexico policy. Fera mongering would only hold water if nothing was ac5ually happening and the argument was that it “could”. I’ve literally pulled small minor girls out of locked tool boxes in ppl trucks who were being trafficked into the US. Kidnapped to be sold. Seen it first hand. Also who’s to say it would be illegal in Nebraska? Just the farther into the interior you go the quicker they spread out and the odds of catching them becomes slim. So we justify within 100 Miles. It’s common sense
End of Conversation.
Of course it would be a dream come true to go person-by-person and present all of my persuasive arguments to each evil bureaucrat and persuade each one to stop committing the evil they do every day. But as I mentioned in the conversation, they get good benefits and they probably earn more money than they could at any other job. His lifestyle is dependent on him not thinking he’s abusing people. He has a very real motivation to think crossing an imaginary line is a sin and that perpetuating a black market in drugs is righteous. I’m still shocked that hardly anyone cares what the founding fathers thought. The meme is spot on in his case and he’s just not smart enough to see it.
I’ve been discussing border issues a while, but I guess I’ve changed my tactic a little so I’m getting different responses. I’ve been talking about how people are so willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for safety. The surprising part is that people don’t even realize the freedoms they’re surrendering. So here’s the list.
1. In order to hire someone you have to act as an agent for the federal government to verify that the employee is legal to work. 2. You can’t hire whoever you want. You can only hire someone who is a citizen or has a green card. 3. You can’t have over to your house whoever you want. A foreigner can’t just legally show up but has to be approved to be in the country and if they are approved can’t just stay around, but can only be here on certain terms. 4. You have to have a passport to re-enter the U.S. in many instances after you’ve left the country. Passports are a pain. Keeping track of passports for a family of 6 is no easy task. 5. The immigration checkpoints within 100 miles of the border mean you can’t drive without being harassed by the government. Why is a [Nazi] checkpoint constitutional near the border but unconstitutional in Nebraska?
I used to think that an evil minority in Washington D.C. managed to take away our freedoms. I’m realizing more and more that Americans beg for their freedoms to be taken away. Ben Franklin said those who would give up liberty in exchange for safety are worthy of neither.
If a random Christian gets challenged by an unbeliever about anything in the Bible whether online or in person, you can guess how it’s going to go. It’s not going well, and there may even be heresy involved, even when you know the random Christian isn’t a heretic. It’s very sad.
The recent invention of one guy standing up and preaching (Sunday morning church service) is a complete failure. Any pastor at this point who isn’t sickened by the obvious failure isn’t paying attention, or is blinded by his paycheck. Sunday morning church is a waste of time as far as the education/sermon is concerned. You’d be better off sleeping in. It’s time to try something different.
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
