Category Archives: Uncategorized
Covetousness Is Idolatry
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.
Fake Kindness
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.
Finally Someone Disagrees and is Capable of Presenting a Rational Argument
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.
Another Greedy Jerk Teacher
Here’s what this teacher says about the tax increase for the rec center:
“For people saying that this will hike their property tax. You are complaining about 20 dollars a month. The median home price is 305,000. YOU SPEND THAT PER WEEK AT KFC.
Investing in youth recreation and community health is good for the whole community. It’s also an easy way to increase the values of your homes.
Maybe it’s not perfect, but it’s something, and something is better than nothing.“
This guy is committing the sins of covetousness and greed, and no one is calling him on it. How is it that no one cares enough to point this out or that pastors don’t preach against this? I don’t get it.
This teacher knows what you spend and he doesn’t like the way you spend it. He has a better plan for your money. He wants that money to go to the rec center. Anyone who disagrees with him is “negative” (according to him in another post). He’s not willing to persuade people to voluntarily donate. He wants to force people under threat of real estate confiscation to pay for his favored project.
Has he donated? If he believes in this project, he can donate and continue donating annually if he believes that is the best use of his money. Projects are financed this way often. He shouldn’t need to be sent a threatening letter (a property tax bill) to remind him to donate to the cause he so heartily believes in.
But for those who don’t believe it’s the best use of their money (annually for the next 30 years) he wants to take away their choice. He doesn’t want to just agree to disagree. He doesn’t want to use persuasive arguments to solicit donations. He wants their money, regardless of what they think.
But Christians are to stand up for the weak and oppressed. He hopes that government power is used to oppress those who disagree with this project. He’s free to donate if he wants. He wants to take away freedom from those who differ. That is the epitome of greed, and covetousness.
There are so many wicked teachers that I think that will someday be one of the worst insults you can call someone: “You’re just a teacher!”
Biggest Moron Cop Ever?
This guy is a contender for the biggest moron cop ever. That is saying something, because tons of cops are morons.
I don’t know where this takes place, but the name of the channel is “Texas Rebel”. In Texas, you don’t have to identify yourself unless you’re under arrest (Texas penal code 38.02). In Colorado, you don’t have to identify unless you’re suspected of a crime (CRS 16-3-103). Judging by the accent and the channel name, I’d guess it took place in Texas. So the cop is objectively speaking, just a complete and abject liar and moron, regardless of where it took place, but especially if it is in Texas.
The other good thing about his is it’s less than 2 minutes long. Enjoy!
Self-Refuting
Yesterday, I posted a little bit about this post from a guy who is in authority at my former church.
He realizes it’s self-refuting. He shouldn’t have posted it at all, and it’s false the way it’s written. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I can reword it a little bit, and I think I can find some truth in what he’s saying.
I’m the type of personality that enjoys having written debates more than face-to-face. I don’t care that much about whether someone who knows a lot actually cares about me or has a relationship with me. I want to hear what they have to say.
However, not everyone is like me. Some people care more about relationships, and if he wants to spread his knowledge face-to-face in the context of deep relationships, I’m not going to criticize him for that. But, I find that favor is often not reciprocated. The existence of this post is him criticizing those of differing personalities.
Relationship may be his personality, but he can’t carry it out in real life. Has he ever gone to a doctor or consulted with some sort of expert that he didn’t have a close relationship with? Has he ever hired a contractor or taken his car to a mechanic without supping at his house weekly for years? Does he care how much those people know even though they don’t give a crap about him personally, other than they have to do a good job to get paid?
Did Jesus and the prophets and disciples only do relationship evangelism? They open-air preached and spoke to strangers. Jesus spoke with the woman at the well and told her she was an adulteress after speaking with her for only a few moments. Philip appeared out of nowhere, “offered truth” to the Ethiopian Eunuch and disappeared. Did the Ethiopian care how much Philip knew before he knew how much he cared? What a stupid thing to say!
But, Jesus and the disciples cultivated relationships as well. Do what you can to spread the truth to people. Use strategies that work for your strengths and work on your weaknesses.
I need to improve my relationship skills, no doubt. But headsmacker here needs to learn to speak the truth to strangers, too. God uses all of us. He made us all different. I have trouble empathizing with people like this guy, but it seems too many of his type are quick with the criticism of my type. I think this post reveals a lot of immaturity in him and it’s not good that he’s in a position of leadership in a church.
How to Know You’re Winning an Argument
I love a good online discussion. The challenge is often keeping my comments short. I’ve learned a lot from reading other people’s conversations and debates. I’ve learned a ton from articles and memes. I love memes, because they are often short and to the point and can be powerful ways of conveying complicated arguments. Memes have challenged me to go on and do a lot of research on my own and change my mind on many things. I’ve often heard people say that no one ever changes their mind because of an online debate/discussion. I don’t know, but maybe that person is not open minded or is so pompous as to think they’ve got it all figured out. That has certainly not been my experience.
I’d say I started debating online around 2007 or 2008. I loved the way Youtube used to do their comments. There would be great debates there. Blogs also used to be great, but no one really does much of that anymore. The comment system on Facebook is terrible, but it’s good enough, and it’s where people are right now.
One of the problems I had when I started was being able to tell when I won an argument. It seemed I would say A, they would say B and then it would go on, and as long as the conversation would go on, as long as they continued, I must not have won the argument. After reading “Always Ready” by Greg Bahnsen (who was a genius), I learned that whenever anyone used a self-contradictory argument, their position was untenable, and they had lost. Also, if they can’t be consistent with their argument, whether that’s from topic to topic or even in the same discussion, they’ve also lost.
But over the last few years, I’ve noticed that people also indicate the loss of their argument in a couple other ways. They will delete all their comments, or they will start attacking me personally. In Facebook, if you reply to someone’s comment, and go on to have a long conversation with them, you can lose the whole conversation if they delete their first comment. You can take screenshots if you start to worry about someone deleting the conversation. At least you won’t lose everything you typed that way. Another way is to not reply to their comment, but to make a separate comment and tag them in it. Then, they may do the same or they may reply to your comment.
I’ve had people insult me personally. Atheists will hurl all types of filth at me personally, but even Christians will insult me personally or say I’m judgmental or change the subject to me or talk about something I might be doing. Here’s an example of that from the woman from my previous post.
Here’s the meme she was referring to. You can see it in yesterday’s post, but it might be too small to read. It is one of my favorites, especially for this individual.
My initial comments are on yesterday’s post, and maybe I’m the biggest jerk in the world, but I presented, rational, logical arguments. Those arguments are either right or wrong, regardless of where I live or how beady my eyes are.
I have recently found most people to be utterly incapable of responding to an argument in a rational way. Even people from my former church want a safe place, and desire safety over truth.
As I said yesterday, Karen is a principal at an elementary school. People send their kids to be educated by this woman who probably hasn’t had a rational thought pass through her head since the late 80s. What results do you expect from public school when the principal is a moron?
Send Your Kids to the Government School?
I keep running into my former teachers on Facebook who say some of the most retarded things. This woman was never my teacher, but she must be a real winner, because she’s a principal currently. People with her logic skills ought to be placed in positions of authority, right?
Really, I blame pastors for being unwilling to teach on any political topics, even though Scripture speaks clearly on it. Christians are supposed to protect the weak, but when the majority of citizens vote to have government force an individual to pay for something, the individual is out of luck. The taxpayer must not be the weak person in his relationship to government. There must not be any moral principles involved in taxation and the Bible must not speak about government’s proper role.
However, I blame anyone who sends their children to a government school where the teachers are in unrepentant sin and demonstrate an atrocious level of thinking skills. Sartori is the principal of Mountain View Core Knowledge advocating that people vote for a property tax increase to pay for a swimming pool. Here’s the conversation.
Here’s my initial complicated 3-sentence argument full of supposed logical leaps.
- Forcing others to pay for something you want is theft.
- Voting for this is committing the sin of covetousness.
- Thieves will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Where is the leap? Which proposition does she disagree with? #2 might be new information for people. #3 might be new, but I provided a Bible verse.
As far as #2, if you don’t have the right to force someone to pay for something, how did government get that right? Is government not made of humans? If a group of people don’t have the right to force someone to pay for something, how does a group of people get the right to vote for another group of humans to force someone to pay for something? There is certainly nothing in Scripture that would make it acceptable for government to force people to pay for something and the questions in the paragraph have nothing to do with Scripture.
Sentence #3 might be disagreeable to non-Christians, but I’m only here to tell people what the Bible says. Your covetousness will take you to hell, whether you agree or not.
This is the logic of someone responsible for educating hundreds of people. A greedy, covetous statist woman with extremely limited logic skills. But keep sending your kids and according to Christ, they will be like their teachers.
Race in America
Conservatives generally deny that black people face any sort of disadvantage or bad treatment from cops. I think it’s safe to say otherwise. Poor people are much less likely to be able to hire a lawyer to mount a defense in court. It is easier to get a conviction on someone like that. The video below gives further evidence of that.
It is an utter injustice that we should be angry about. It could be solved by eliminating all socialism in this country, including socialist-funded police.
By the way, the channel that Youtube video is on is Free to Choose, which has some excellent videos. I’m going to be posting some of the other videos from there that I find particularly interesting.