Category Archives: Christianity

Border Policy, Capitalism, Christianity

The Question That Got Me Kicked Out of a Tea Party Group

I have found that the participants in Facebook Tea Party groups have little actual regard for the ideas of the founding fathers. They are every bit as socialist as democrats. I was surprised to see this meme that I like posted by someone who seems to post a lot of socialist stuff.

I posted this comment:

Where on this chart are the people who want to tax me to build a wall, prevent me from hiring or having at my house who I want?

It took the lady who posted it about an hour to respond and she said, something like, “They’re on the right. I’m surprised you couldn’t figure it out for yourself.” I clicked on her profile link, thinking maybe I had not remembered her correctly, but within a few seconds, I realized that I had been blocked from the group.

It’s not the first tea party group I’ve been kicked out of. I had a fantastic discussion about how Social Security was socialist in a big tea party group. I was kicked out of it. But there are tea party groups where those came from. Maybe I should join a liberal group, but I’m sure after my first post about how abortion is murder, I’d be kicked out.

Oh well, I’ll just go on lighting brush fires in people’s minds about the gospel, freedom and capitalism.

Border Policy, Capitalism, Christianity

False Presuppositions of Conservatives Revealed in Border Debate

Of course, not every conservative believes all these things, but as a whole, the arguments conservatives make against open borders reveal their false presuppositions–the beliefs behind the arguments.

1. Restricting immigration is like a homeowner locking his front door.

This argument presupposes that the government owns the entire country. That philosophy is known as socialism. A conservative who uses that argument reveals that they’re actually socialists. No wonder this country is such a mess when even the conservatives are socialists.

2. The population is already too great.

This argument presupposes that the free market is incapable of inducing people to solve problems (more socialist presuppositions). Housing will be built. Solutions to municipal water shortages will be found. People will move away from expensive places to cheaper places. If Mexico loses too many people, prices for real estate will go down, and wages will increase, and people will stay there or move back. The governments of countries that are losing people will have to straighten up and actually serve the people, or reduce taxes and regulation (gasp…freedom).

And besides that, have you ever driven across the country? There are certainly big cities, and even long stretches of places that are densely populated like LA to San Diego or Washington D.C. to Boston, but the vast majority of the country is uninhabited. There are places in the southwest that may not have enough water to support a large expansion of the population. But many places, like the Midwest have a lot of water, and are very sparsely populated. Entire states could support a many-fold population increase.

Also, if conservatives want to use this argument, they’re using the same argument as population control and abortion advocates.

3. Our culture would change.

The false presupposition is that our culture shouldn’t change. We’ve murdered 60 million babies, and millions of innocent people through the warfare state. Our taxes are outrageous. The vast majority of people send their kids to the government for their education. There are a lot of good things about America, but an unbiblical border policy isn’t one of them. How is God going to bless a country that is so fearful and hateful towards outsiders, when we were all once outsiders?

Most hispanics who come here are Catholic, and I think Catholics have a false gospel, but they have a generally Christian worldview. They value children, family, thrift and hard work. They are more American than Americans. They have some shortcomings, but I have found them to be great people.

Muslims who come here from the middle east are leaving the Muslim world–not because it’s so great, but because they prefer something else. Most Muslims are nominal Muslims, and I think if a concerted effort were made, Islam would be defeated by the superior Christian worldview through evangelism. I think most Muslims who come here would have no problem complying with Old Testament restrictions on idolatry.

A page from a book written by a missionary to the Middle East in the early 1900s who says that Islam is on the brink of defeat. Muslim countries are so backwards they force their citizens to get passports and require permits for so many things. The way to defeat Islam is not to become more like Islam.

4. Government can make whatever laws it wants.

This argument just reveals idolatry. Government cannot make whatever laws it wants. God is our lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22). The government’s only job is to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4). Crossing a border isn’t a sin, and therefore, no government permission is required to do something that isn’t a sin.

This bears out historically. America’s borders were completely open until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Which was obviously stupid. Chinese-Americans are usually high-achieving and contribute to society. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a homeless Chinese person).

There is no power in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. And before you quote anything about naturalization, look up what that word means, it’s not the same as immigration.

5. They’ll take our jobs.

Only a true socialist–like the government-educated American conservative–could make such a communist argument. The first obvious error is that when people move into an area is that more services are demanded, which means more jobs. The second obvious error is that jobs aren’t owned by the commune (communism) but by the employer. Way to show a complete disrespect to free market economics!

6. Liberals are for open borders.

As you’ve already seen, the “conservative” arguments for restricting immigration are socialist, unamerican and anti-Christian, in other words, liberal. This also bears out in recent American history.

Abolish The Police, Christianity, consistency, Conversation, For My Kids, Theonomy

This Is How You Know When Your Beliefs Are True – Conversation With a Cop Friend

So my FB friend who is a cop posted a story about how a guy fell for a trick from the cops to bring his illegal drugs to them to have them tested. The cops then stole his drugs and took him to jail, i.e. they kidnapped the guy, which is a death penalty crime for the cops. Ha Ha Ha, death penalty crimes are so funny. Here’s the conversation.

This guy posts on theological topics several times per day. He’s more than happy to discuss theology; he just doesn’t have any idea how to answer my questions, yet he kidnaps people for a living. I could see how that would cause some coping problems and some inconsistencies in thinking. He’s only a few years from retiring from his government job in his 40s, so that kind of incentive makes it hard to turn your back on the antichrist system.

The issue is that doing drugs is a sin, but not a crime. Lex Talionis is the principle of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth–the teaching that the punishment fits the crime. There is no victim for doing drugs, so no one to sue for justice. He rejects that biblical principle for the lawlessness of man’s law.

Does he heave the ability to tell whether a law is just or unjust? He rejects the biblical system that would allow Scripture to speak on such an important topic, and he can’t turn from that inadequate system because he loves money and comfort.

I realize he’s in a difficult situation. The solution isn’t to expect guys like him to repent, but to help prevent young guys from choosing an unjust career. Stop the America worship and get pastors to teach the whole counsel of God.

Christianity, For My Kids

How to Find the Truth

First of all, truth is an absolute. The definition of truth is that which conforms to the mind of God. There is no way to account for truth apart from the God of the Bible. Repentance leads you to the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). That is, you first submit to God, and then you have access to truth. So, this post is mostly for people who are already Christians.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of disagreement on various topics among Christians. How do you determine the truth when two or more Christians disagree on something? The best way to find the truth I have found is to engage in debate. Watching or reading other people debate is good, but it is only a useful way to learn good arguments to apply in your own debates. I have had a lot of success in learning new things by learning a little about a topic, debating someone else, which will require you to learn more to win a debate. This will be the blessing of Facebook and other social media. We complain that Facebook sometimes censors Christians and conservatives, but the real benefit is that iron sharpening iron in a massive way through social media will cause the truth to triumph among Christians.

My first tip is that you have to not debate a moron. You have to debate someone knowledgeable. You may not be able to debate a famous person, but there are people who are pretty knowledgeable about every topic that are accessible online. They’re not famous in society at large, but if it’s a specific-enough topic, they are famous in that small circle. Those types of people are usually open to discussion whether it’s on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube or whatever. I would be more than willing to debate the CEO of Planned Parenthood on abortion or a philosophy professor atheist on the existence of God. They may be smarter than me, but their beliefs are false.

That being said, I enjoy talking to morons who like to shoot off their mouth, but have almost no capability to defend what they believe. I don’t do this to test my ideas to find the truth but more to spread the truths I’ve already proven. Other people read those conversations, and learn about your position, or maybe the moron will eventually change their mind. But I can only think of three times out of hundreds where someone has changed their minds or admitted that they were not arguing properly. Twice on a Youtube comment thread, and once through e-mail (I can’t remember how I was introduced to the Jehovah’s Witness I was emailing, but he lived in the Caribbean somewhere.)

This may be the most important part: How do you know whether you’ve won or lost a debate? A lot of people in a written debate can bluster enough so that it can be hard to tell whether you’ve won. As I’ve said, it is extremely rare when someone admits they were wrong. Here are a few guidelines to help discern whether you’ve won or lost.
1. Whose questions are going unanswered or ignored?
2. Whose answers are logically fallacious?
3. An indicator can be: who is calling more names? Though, sometimes the person who is right is just a jerk.

Item 2 took me several years to hone my skills. I intend to teach my children what logical fallacies are so that maybe they’ll have a leg up on me.

I’ve used this method for more than ten years on various topics, such as evangelism methods, the Trinity, what it means to be born again and how it applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, Calvinism, theonomy, open borders, abolishing police, socialism, abolishing public school/the value of homeschooling, creationism, and a few others.

A lot of those topics are related, but rest assured, Scripture always wins. I might be personally lacking knowledge that causes me to lose a debate, but when I go find the answer for the next debate from Scripture, I win. I would like to get started debating postmillennialism with premillennialists. I think that is an important topic.

Have I ever lost a debate? Yes, not necessarily because I was wrong, but because I didn’t have the answer to a question, and by the time I figured out the answer, the debate was stale and I didn’t go back. I’ve lost that way to a guy who was saying that only ordained elders/evangelists/pastors should proclaim the gospel. I’ve lost on the street to the first JW I ever spoke to. I’ve lost to an atheist when he asked why atheism can’t account for why 1+1=2.

The danger is in not knowing when you’ve lost, or being too proud to not admit that you’ve lost or that your beliefs are wrong, or being unwilling to change your mind. I haven’t won the majority of my debates because I’m so smart, but because I was defending what most Christians already believed, or because I happened to choose a belief among Christians that seemed to fit the best with Scripture, even if it was unpopular among other Christians. Sometimes, I have observed debates, and have seen one side win handily. That is a good indication of what the truth is, but you have to be able to defend it yourself.

The reason I write this is because the thought popped into my head that while I’m middle-aged and healthy, anyone could drop dead at anytime. I’m glad I have been writing and debating online for 10 years so that my young children will have a record of my beliefs. I want to put in writing the important things so that even if I died today my children who are too young to understand this now will be able to read this someday.

Abolish The Police, Another Lying Cop, Christianity, Police Abuse, Power Trip, Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God

I Don’t Respect Police or U.S. Law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmpSDNx5L8

Obviously, it’s not a crime to disrespect a cop. He’s just lying through his teeth.

The choice in this life is between Jesus Christ and absurdity. The U.S. court system has determined that it’s unconstitutional for the government to submit to Christ. Therefore, they have chosen absurdity, and it is not only not worthy of respect, it is only worthy of mockery.

Abolish The Police, Christianity

Thank God for Police Body Cameras and the Cameras In Our Pockets

A Christian, cop friend of mine posted this:

You may remember Rodney King. He was badly beaten by a few cops, whose trial was moved from LA and a jury of Rodney’s peers to Simi Valley, which is about 90% white. The jury found the cops not guilty, and that sparked the LA riots in 1992. Rodney’s beating was video taped from afar by a guy with a big VHS video camera. If it weren’t for that guy’s video, no one would have ever known about those evil cops.

Today, a lot of cops wear a body camera, and people have video cameras in their pockets, and carry them everywhere. It has led to hundreds of cops being exposed as evil, crooked, power-tripping, dirt bags. However, just as with Rodney King, prosecutors (who are on the same side as the cops) manage to get cops off for the crimes they commit, even when there is video.

For example, several cops have been caught planting drugs by their body cam.  Cop apologists say that is the 1% of bad cops they’re talking about. I have a couple of questions about that. Did the police departments in these cases volunteer this video to the defense or the media? Wouldn’t the real measure of the effectiveness of body cams be the rate at which the “good” cops voluntarily use the footage to pursue justice against cops who do bad things? How often, when a cop sees another cop doing something wrong has the good cop requested the footage or taken his own footage of the incident and sought justice for the wrongdoing, or even made an arrest? Are the relatively small proportion of body cams catching bad cops due to defendants, prosecutors or media requesting footage? How hard is it for people to get the footage of any given incident, and are we sure the footage isn’t doctored?

I have no doubt that cops love body cams when they’re falsely accused, and they spread the footage far and wide. I also have no doubt that people have often falsely accused them, and “good” cops ought to love body cams.

All of that is interesting, but the big question this meme raises is: By what standard do we measure “good”? Greg Bahnsen wrote books on that topic, one of which is titled “By What Standard?” I vehemently reject that the standard for what makes a good cop can be found in man’s law. A cop that goes through his career having never abused any citizens, but strictly enforcing unjust laws is not a good cop. The standard for goodness must come from Scripture. God owns the terms good, bad, evil, wicked, righteous and just. Those are terms only he can define.

So what is the biblical definition of a good cop? First of all, socialist-funded security services wouldn’t be permitted in Scripture. Second, individuals having executive power to arrest people on the spot is also biblically prohibited. Third, forgetting the first two issues, the definition for good government would come from Romans 13 (among other places). That chapter teaches that rulers are supposed to be God’s servants to carry out His wrath against evildoers. Every level of U.S. government is prohibited from seeking to be a servant of the God of the Bible. It is unconstitutional.

Did you catch that? It is unconstitutional for our government to be good by God’s definition. There are no good cops, judges, street sweepers, TSA agents, bureaucrats, etc., unless they are somehow sabotaging the system, disobeying orders or refusing to do the sinful things they may be asked to do.

So, body cams have shown that there are plenty of bad cops. And for a Christian to post this meme only goes to show the sad state of the American church.

Body cams are great, because even though they may not be effective all the time, and may be tampered with, they have exposed many dirty cops. I would also think that police would be less likely to abuse people with their body cams on. Ultimately, the only thing that will improve police behavior is if they’re prosecuted and treated under the same law as everyone else. Having cops commit a crime on body cam and then having the prosecutor not prosecute or throw the case is useless.

 

 

 

Christianity

The Ten Fundamentals of Modern Statism by RJ Rushdoony

1. The first duty of every state is to protect the state, not the people.

2. Other states are occasional enemies; the people are the continual enemies.

3. The purpose of taxation is confiscation, control, the redistribution of wealth, control, the support of the civil government, and control.

4. All steps to increase state power must be done in the name of The People, but the people are to be used and stripped of freedom in the process.

5. Freedom is dangerous; controls are good.

6. Freedom must be redefined; it is a right to be morally loose and irresponsible, but Christian morality is social slavery.

7. Children are the property of the state.

8. The two great sources of evil are the church and the family.

9. The only world is the world; there is no God, no heaven, nor hell.

10. Anything the state operates or does is good, in any and all spheres: education, war, peace, spending, and so on. What is “public” or statist is good; what is “private” is bad.

Christianity, Open Borders

How Do We Know Whether We Should Have Open Borders?

There are a couple of issues where conservatives have completely gone off their rockers, where they endorse liberalism, and claim it is conservatism–borders and police.

Conservatives are supposed to be for small government, but they leave that ideal behind on this topic. In this video, we see a clear demonstration that Reagan is for much more freedom on this issue than Bill Clinton/Obama, etc. Yet conservatives ignore Reagan and adopt liberalism whole hog.

I’d also point out that conservatives are supposed to be strict constructionists on the Constitution. Yet, the Constitution gives no power to congress to regulate immigration, but they’re willing to throw out the Constitution on this topic.

Is this just an intellectual exercise, or is it important for Christians to be able to figure this out? It seems important to me to figure this out. The Bible speaks on this topic. Why would we be free to ignore it or contradict it? We are to be kind to immigrants and stand up for the weak. If we are in favor of the government harassing people, we are hardly applying biblical principles.

Christianity, Great Quote

Tips For Young Women

I have two little girls, a 3-year old and one whose due date is tomorrow. I definitely feel unqualified to advise them as they grow up. I guess I haven’t prepared for that, but I have a few years, and things like this will catch my eye.

This is advice from Bojidar Marinov that sounds pretty good.

That’s why I tell single girls (including my own): As a general rule, stay away from these three groups of men: (1) statists and government employees (socialists, Communists, cops, bureaucrats, etc.), (2) institutional church leaders (pastors, youth pastors, worship leaders, teachers in seminaries, etc.), and (3) patriarchalists. There may be individual exceptions among them, but in general, all these people have the mentality of exploiting you as a weaker vessel, always under the disguise of “exercising authority” over you. And you will eventually end up exploited, no matter how glorious the beginning may be.

Find a man who is focused not on finding a wife but on serving others – whether business, work, art, finances, charity, etc. A man who has a field of work that doesn’t depend on you and doesn’t include ruling over you as a source for his sense of “manhood.”. That’s the man you want. If he is interested in you, great. If not, use your female charm to make him interested in you. And then, when you marry him, keep him focused on his work, so that he give you the freedom to be a true wife, not a concubine of the sort the patriarchalists want you to be.