As I’ve gotten involved in various Christian organizations or causes, there inevitably comes disagreement and eventually a split of some kind. You have to choose which fork in the road to take, and the number of people you find yourself among are about half of what they were. Eventually, there’s another fork and another and another. Maybe not among the same group, but in different ways, you’re growing more and more specific in your beliefs, and you may eventually find yourself among a very small group.
This has always troubled me. But my friend has this to say:
“There’s rarely if ever such a thing as perfect unity between creatures who learn discursively, so we should not be under any unrealistic illusions of unity. What we can expect are alliances and sharply defined unity and division with everyone we enjoy fellowship with. This requires effort and charity, but it is worth the investment and necessary.
Division is necessary, but it does not necessarily mean we are ultimately divided. Paul said that without division, we’d never know what is right or wrong. I love and am united with sincere Christians who believe fascist propaganda. Ultimately, we are united, in Christ, but on their idolatrous, fearful error, we are divided. The ultimate unity, in spite of division is what the world will look on and admire. As iron sharpens iron through debate and friction, it produces deeper and more meaningful unity.
False unity: ignoring of division, and neglecting iron sharpening iron is not admirable. It requires no effort. It’s lazy, and there is no love in it. I despise the “agree to disagree” attitude. It’s not Christian.”
The good news is you are learning from different people and organizations, and eventually, you don’t need them anymore. You still need fellowship, but you don’t have to be taught about a certain topic any longer. Hopefully, as we get older and more mature and you find that the group you identify with is smaller and smaller, you have unity on important topics with local Christians. Even though they may not know as much as you, and they occasionally say things you disagree with, you can teach them what you’ve learned. Maybe they’ll come to agree and maybe they won’t, but you have unity on the important doctrines of the faith.
I read a conversation with a covenanter. They have some peculiar beliefs, that you may have never heard about anyone believing. They are small in number, but they are smart guys. The doctrine I’m referring to is probably one that most evangelicals hold to in general, but these guys are passionate defenders of it. I hope I’m not misrepresenting it, but they believe that any new doctrines not held by the early church, or at least not held by the time of the writing of the confessions in the 1600s that it is false. To rephrase, they would say that any new doctrine would be false.
I know that I’ve believed something similar to that, and the pessimistic eschatological view of most evangelicals (premillennialism) would dictate something similar: that Christianity would have less and less influence, and fewer Christians over time.
However, covenanters aren’t premill, they are postmill, which is optimistic about the future. They seem to believe that the Westminster Confession (1646) is the apex of Christian knowledge, and they believe it wholeheartedly.
But, if postmillennialism is true, we may very well be in early church history, and Christianity will grow in influence. The curse is being reversed. The Holy Spirit is going to have more and more intamacy with believers. If that is true, it seems that our knowledge and application of Scripture may very well improve over time, and grow more detailed. We’re standing on the shoulders of giants who battled heretics and strived to accurately define important doctrines like the Trinity. The Westminster Confession may have been nearly perfect, but I think the authors would have been open to correction and would not expect anyone to just submit to what they say, or change their minds on something, just because they say it’s true.
Have you ever run across a portion of Scripture that is hard to understand? What immediately comes to mind for me is head coverings for women (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). I don’t think anyone really knows for sure what that means, though I think Bojidar Marinov has the best explanation. As the effects of the curse is pushed back by the spread of the gospel, is it possible that we will come to a better understanding of what that passage means? Is it possible that we will discover an ancient document that sheds light on the topic? How many other such difficult passages are there?
It seems to me important topics, such as most Christians’ understanding of Romans 13 is woefully lacking. It’s possible that covenanters are on the right track–that we just need to study historical Christian teaching on the topic. It’s also possible that as our evil form of government affects our interpretation of that passage, and once a majority of Christians have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches about government, they will demand a more biblical government.
I’m optimistic that God’s kingdom will grow as the gospel spreads. Our understanding of Scripture will improve and we will make new discoveries about the Bible and how to apply it to our lives. The apex of Christian understanding wasn’t 1646, but some date far in the future.
I can’t tell if this cop is a man or woman, so that’s the first problem. The second problem is he or she lies twice until this guy calls his or her bluff. At least I think this individual knows they’re bluffing. Most other cops insist that you have to obey their every whim.
My homeschooled children were listening to an audio book about history of the world from about 1500 to 1800 while we were driving. Pretty much all the stories were pretty disgusting. The Japanese were attacking China and Korea. The Manchurian Chinese took advantage of the effect of the plague on the Han Chinese to take over power. The Indian rulers called themselves kings of the world and the last one before the British really started to take over spent 20 years attacking Indians in the south to try to make them submit to his rule. Louis XIV in France was a true ego maniac. Even Oliver Cromwell in England, who did some good things, when he got power, he ended up forcing legalistic Puritan beliefs on everyone. It was pathetic. Not much good was going on as far as civil governments go.
This Thomas Sowell quote is really dead on. I look forward to the day when government is gone. We will all be so much better off when a bunch of psychos aren’t forcing their citizens to pay them, and even attacking foreigners to bilk them as well.
I’d love to have someone watch this and imagine this sort of thing going on all across the country and explain how sending your kids to a government camp is a good idea.
It’s that time of year again—time to make preparations for the big day. It’s a day when foolishness is celebrated, and pranksters run amok. It’s National Atheist’s Day, better known as April Fools’ Day. Today we’ll look at one of Charles Darwin’s most far-fetched theories—a theory even a child can laugh at. This is one that’s only suited for a holiday as foolish as National Atheists Day: the evolution of the giraffe.
Darwin speculated on the evolution of the giraffe:
“So under nature with the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearths [drought] to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved…for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food….Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed [bred] and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish…By this process long continued…it seems to me almost certain that any ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe.”
According to Darwin, during a period of drought, the tallest gazelles (for example) would have had food to eat, while the shorter gazelles would have starved. The taller gazelles would have had taller offspring, and eventually, after millions of generations, gazelles became the giraffes we have today. Let’s play along with Darwin and see where his idea takes us.
While all of Africa’s other grazing animals seem to have done quite well, the shorter gazelles that weren’t quite as tall as their cousins starved. What caused them, specifically, to starve to death? Maybe, in seeing their fellow creatures eat leaves from tall trees, they were too proud to lower their heads to eat grass. This may seem plausible until we recognize that all grazing animals (including modern giraffes) bend down to drink water. Darwin, however, maintains they died of starvation—not thirst.
Since only the tallest giraffes survived, all the females also must have died, as females are on average two feet shorter than the males. How exactly, then, do giraffe’s reproduce today?
Another Huge Problem
The giraffe’s heart generates enormous pressure in order to pump blood all the way up its long neck to its brain. Were it not for its complex blood pressure regulating system, when a giraffe bent over, it would suffer serious brain damage. If it managed to bend over without dying, it wouldn’t be able raise its head again. Its brain would suffer from a sudden lack of oxygen, and it would pass out. Here’s a four minute video with more info on that:https://www.youtube.com/embed/BMz9o9LP9WI?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent
Furthermore, after a century of intense fossil exploration, no intermediate forms are on display in any museum in the world. The billions of giraffazelles have kept their remains well hidden. There is no intermediate form linking the giraffe to any other creature.
If you still believe that giraffes evolved, you may want to check yourself into a mental institution, or the biology Ph.D. program at a university. There are few other places where such fairy tales are believed. But keep your chin up. National Atheist’s Day is right around the corner.
This guy is a greedy, covetous idolater who wants to take your money to build a very expensive swimming pool to be operated by the government, who are not exactly renowned for their efficient, cost-effective decision making. I told him that, and I told him government can’t give government permission to steal other people’s things. That’s circular logic. So, how exactly does theft mutate into taxation in his mind? Here’s his answer:
He says it’s not exactly government giving government permission to steal. It’s the founding fathers who gave the government permission to steal. So you see, it’s way different. It was all put in writing in 1788, so there’s a document that gives government permission to steal. It all makes perfect sense. Wait just a second. How does the Constitution, written by men, give a government made of men the right to take other people’s property? I have no idea. It’s his religious belief that he obviously takes on blind faith. There is no good reason to believe it. Ultimately the religious belief he has is that might makes right.
Scripture calls covetous people idolaters (Ephesians 5:5) and he’s putting his idolatry on full display. People always scoff at me on Facebook when I point out the religious nature of these discussions. If you want to engage in a discussion of morality and laws and how you can know things, that’s a religious discussion. There is no way to know anything or know right and wrong apart from Scripture.
The thing that is really reprehensible is this line, “Those who don’t wish to abide by it are heartily encouraged to find another country with a government more to their liking.”
Here’s what that means. We’re going to go on stealing from people and oppressing whoever we want. If you don’t want to be stolen from, you have to get far away from us. We’re not interested in just leaving you alone. We will get in your comfort zone with a 9 mm if necessary.
I’m a mean guy. I point out when people are hypocritical and covetous and advocating theft. My comments are just mean. The people who want to rip me off, now, they’re the nice ones. They just want to get along and wonder why everyone they’re threatening to financially attack is being so stingy. Why don’t we care about the children?
I’m particularly sickened by “conservatives” who are advocating socialist programs like public school. They should know better. Here’s an example of someone who pretends to be a rock-ribbed conservative who could explain why socialism is bound to fail and how Bernie Sanders is a moron.
Her post started out asking for people in the tea party group to sign some petition so that her kids’ school district will be slightly less evil. This would be like asking for the strip club her husband frequents every day to reduce the price of their Buffalo wings. It only legitimizes the strip club and her husband’s adultery. All she’s doing when she begs the government for some favor is legitimizing the theft that funds public school and secular humanist education.
Here’s the conversation:
She posted a couple more responses making similar arguments, and then she either blocked me or deleted the post. I was a little bit on the confrontational side, but some people need a wake up call. Good people who yearn for the truth won’t be offended by a little confrontation. They may dislike you in the moment, but they will love you for telling the truth.
I finally found someone with more than two brain cells to rub together to respond to my position that police is a socialist program. I posted this meme in a Tea Party group, and this conservative responded. I like this guy, even though he’s mistaken, but at least he put up a good effort.
I’ll break up his response and italicize his words.
Ok, here we go. Nothing I write here should be taken as a personal criticism of you. My observations will be about the core principle at the foundation of the meme.
The meme is a straw man argument I have seen advanced by liberals for many years. At its core is the false premise that any belief in government, and any belief in a tax, and any belief in any kind of government program is a belief in and an advocacy for socialism.
Liberals are correct when they make that point. American socialist programs don’t work, because government gets paid whether they do a good job or not. Socialism is immoral, because it is based on stealing money from people, i.e. forcing people to pay for something whether they want it or not. Scripture gives the civil penalties for all crimes, and there is no penalty for not paying taxes. It was a sin in the Old Testament to not pay your taxes, but not a crime. Scripture nowhere gives government the right to force anyone to pay for anything, much less all the programs we have today, including police.
The reason we know that to be a false premise is because we live in the real world and we are, or most of us, are students of history. The meme requires the belief that there is no distance, no daylight, between the absence of government–call it what you will–anarchy, chaos, the law of the jungle, might equals right–and socialism.
He’s right that my position is that even a tiny bit of force in government taxation is wrong, and is socialism. That’s not to say that a country with a 1% tax rate is just as bad as a country with a 90% tax rate. It’s just that the 1% is theft and is immoral. I’d also say that when some people are forcing other people to pay for something, because they are stronger and run in packs, that is the law of the jungle. That is more akin to the anarchy by his definition than the anarchy I espouse.
One can believe in government and in taxes, and not be a socialist. In fact, capitalism, including free market capitalism, believes in government and in the proper use of taxes to operate that government. The distinction is the perceptions on the role, purpose and function of government, and the extent and degree of government. Classical liberalism (modern conservativsm) and modern progressivism view government very differently.
Conservatives believe government is the answer to very little, whereas liberals believe government is the answer to almost everything.
How do we know what the proper roles of government are? Liberals would probably say whatever voters decide. Conservatives might say (though they don’t follow through on this belief) that the Constitution determines the proper role of government. There is some truth in that. The states made a voluntary agreement, and if the states as their corporate entities want to stick with that agreement, they’re free to do so, as long as they don’t violate our God-given rights.
God-given rights is something the founders spoke of, and Scripture is the only way we can really know what our rights are and what the proper role of government is. People are free to associate and contract together to do certain things. What they’re not free to do is force me into their contract or infringe on my rights. Our God-given rights are the corollary to God’s law. I have the right to life because God prohibited murder. I have the right to private property, because God prohibited theft. I have the right to not be cheated on by my wife because God prohibited adultery. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER ISN’T A SIN, and even additionally, government has no jurisdiction over the sins that aren’t criminal under God’s law. Anywhere government tries to stop me from doing something that isn’t a sin it is violating my rights. If they take life or property by force (unless I’ve come under their jurisdiction by committing a crime), they are violating my rights.
Conservatives are not anti-government or anti-tax. They believe government is a necessary evil because there are things that only government can do, or do well. Our Founding Fathers were such men. That is why they created a constitutional republic, rooted in federalism to curb a large centralized federal government, and a constitution which limited the federal government to limited and enumerated powers.
When he says there are things that only government can do, he’s wrong. I think what he means is that there are things only people working together can do. The only job of magistrates in Scripture is to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4). There may be many things that people ought to work together to do, such as the infrastructure projects he lists below. If the only way those things can happen is by forcing people to do them, then that’s barbarism.
The role of a federal government in a capitalist society is narrow and constrained and properly limited to such matters as the defining and defense of borders, the creation and maintenance of a military, the management of finance and economics through the creation of and supervision of sound money, the building of large infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, railways, tunnels and canals, law and order including the creation and maintenance of a judicial system to resolve civil and criminal disputes and the establishment of police and fire departments to maintain civil order including protecting private property and personal protection against violence and criminal activity, to include jails and penitentiaries.
I’d definitely disagree with several items on the list. Prison isn’t a just punishment for anything. It isn’t the proper punishment given by God for any crime, but it also punishes society by forcing them to pay for food and shelter for the criminal. Even the victim gets punished by having to pay their share for the criminal’s upkeep.
And he is just making this list up. There is no real basis for saying only government can do these things or that these are the proper roles for government, and the founding fathers would have disagreed with much of the list. There were no police until the 1840s. He’s begging the question.
All civil and orderly societies past and present recognize the legitimate powers of government in such narrow circumstances.
All civil societies? Not Old Testament Israel, and early America didn’t recognize even his short list, though their short list was much longer than Israel’s short list. In fact, any society where people are forced to pay for something isn’t a civil and orderly society at all. And I don’t care how many people are doing it wrong. We have to strive to do it right.
Over time, the United States has drifted from these principles, such as the creation of a postal service. Most believe, mistakenly, that it began with FDR, but it actually began in ernest with Woodrow Wilson. It was under Wilson that a national income tax was created. From the nation’s founding until 1913 the USA had no income tax, yet in that 150 year period we went from a small agrarian society to a world economic power. After 1913, the USA instituted social programs beyond its charter to include the FDA, Social Security, the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Energy and Education, to name a few.
Agreed.
Not all government programs are socialist. The difference between capitalism and socialism is not the presence or absence of government, but the degree to which government controls the society and its economy through government programs, government regulations and laws and enforcement actions.
If the government program forces you to pay for it, that is the problem, and that is what makes it socialist. That means that whatever the program is, they are claiming that you don’t own your money. Your money is collectively owned. It’s not really yours, even if it’s temporarily in your bank account. They will transfer their money out of your bank account and claim it’s not stealing, because you owe it to them. The day it comes due, you will pay them, or they will come to collect, with guns if necessary.
Socialism, as you know, is where the means of production and distribution of goods and services are collectively owned by a central government that plans and controls the economy.
Importantly, capitaism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; they can exist in a blended society on certain issues.
American programs such as police or roads or whatever program conservatives like are socialist for the reasons outlined above. You owe the tax, because that money in your possession now, isn’t really yours.
And how do conservatives know what a valid government program is? The only possible source for such information is Scripture. No one references Scripture. They just make up the list.
A modern day example of confusion on socialism are the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway and Finland. They are often cited as successful examples of socialism. They are not socialist countries. They are free market capitalist countries with socialist policies on two key issues: health care and education. And they have very high taxes to pay for them, except that Finland recently abandoned its public health system because it was bankrupting the country.
He’s right on this, though I hadn’t heard the part about Finland. Some countries are more socialist than others, and some of those countries he listed rival the U.S. for economic freedom. That’s not to say their socialist programs aren’t pure evil, because they are. They just aren’t the bastions of blonde-hair, blue-eyed socialism that liberals like to think. They don’t want you to look at that icky off-white socialism in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. Of course, they don’t reference the skin color; it’s funny how that works out.
In conclusion, an American who expects his or her taxes to be used to create and fund a government sponsored municipal police force to protect them, their family and their home is not a socialist. I am not a socialist but I expect to get the Social Security benefits promised me. Why? Because the government took my money without my consent and against my will for 47 years of my working life. I want my money back.
Again, the issue is being forced to pay for a program you don’t want. If people aren’t happy with their police service, they should be able to unsubscribe and use a different service, or even switch to a DIY solution such as carrying a gun. The free market will cause firms to innovate new solutions to more efficiently serve people. You will get way better service from the free market for less than the money you pay in taxes, because socialism doesn’t work.
I see his argument about Social Security. The problem is that the only way he’ll get his money is for it to be stolen from someone else. His money was stolen and given away to his socialist grandma. The only possible way for Social Security to come to an end is for someone to have paid into it and receive nothing in return. Who will that be? Well baby boomers will make damn sure it’s not them.
Someone who believes the government can and should provide cradle to grave services and is willing to sacrifice their freedoms and most of their earnings for those services is a socialist. Socialism and communism are a hand and glove. Socialism is an economic system, and communism is a political system that runs a socialist economy.
Some socialists want cradle to grave services. Some socialists just want to sacrifice a little bit of freedom to get government police services. Just a 7% sales tax for police isn’t too much to give up, right? Well, maybe we can bump it up to 8% for the next 20 years if they need bullet-proof vests and new cruisers. Surely sacrificing that little bit of freedom and making my neighbors pay, even if they disagree, isn’t too much freedom to surrender? Well, I for one, refuse to surrender any of my God-given rights to an evil government or my greedy, covetous neighbors.
Communism, as a political form of governance, cannot exist without an underlying socialist economy. Capitalists can and do believe in government and taxes but want them narrowly defined, controlled and exercised.
True capitalists believe that no one can force you to pay for something you don’t want. That isn’t just my opinion. That is what the Bible teaches.
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
