PDA

View Full Version : Anarchism and the Bible / The Bible Against the State




Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 06:47 AM
Anarchism and the Bible (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/rostan1.html)
They go together, says Jérémie T.A. Rostan.


The Bible Against the State


by Jérémie T.A. Rostan (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/mailto:jeremie.rostan@gmail.com)



I must confess, I am not a Christian, myself. Not even a believer. For this reason, I do not consider it my duty to follow God’s Word as it is transcribed in the Bible. I am a convinced anarchist, though, but for other philosophical reasons.

Obviously, not all believers are Christians. Even, not all Christians consider the Bible as God’s literal Word. Neither do they have to. Therefore, my contention, here, is not that all believers, or even all Christians, should be anarchists. But it is my contention that all those who consider the Bible as God’s Word – and His Words to be literally followed, should.

For it is my contention that there is one and only one political position defended throughout this Book: anarchism. Which is constantly presented as the only one in accordance with God’s Will. To the contrary, political obedience is constantly condemned as a breaking of the Testament, and a giving into Evil.

Because the Big Book is a big book, it is impossible to study, or even indicate, all of the elements that support this thesis.1 (http://lewrockwell.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+Bible+Against+the+State+by+J%E9r%E9mie+T .A.+Rostan&expire=&urlID=30107007&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Forig9%2Fros tan1.html&partnerID=10#ref) So, I will only give two examples. One from the Old Testament, and one from the New.

"Ye said unto me: a king shall reign over us, when the LORD, your God, was your King." [Samuel, XII, 12]

The story of the Hebrews, as described in the Old Testament, is quite easy to sum up: God saves His people, who continually fall prey to new kings. So says Samuel [XII, 6–11]:

"And Samuel said unto the people, It is the LORD that advanced Moses and Aaron, and that brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt.

Now therefore stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD of all the righteous acts of the LORD, which he did to you and to your fathers.

When Jacob was come into Egypt, and your fathers cried unto the LORD, then the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, which brought forth your fathers out of Egypt, and made them dwell in this place.

And when they forgot the LORD their God, he sold them into the hand of Sisera, captain of the host of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they fought against them.
And they cried unto the LORD, and said, We have sinned, because we have forsaken the LORD, and have served Baalim and Ashtaroth: but now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies, and we will serve thee.

And the LORD sent Jerubbaal, and Bedan, and Jephthah, and Samuel, and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and ye dwelled safe."
Each time His people forsaken The Lord – each time they sin and worship other kings, who finally oppress them, He sends "Judges," such as Jerubaal, to deliver them.2 (http://lewrockwell.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+Bible+Against+the+State+by+J%E9r%E9mie+T .A.+Rostan&expire=&urlID=30107007&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Forig9%2Fros tan1.html&partnerID=10#ref)

And it is the story of one of them, the latter, which will be my first example. Rather, the story of two of his sons, Abimelech and Jotham. It goes as follows [Judges IX, 1–15]:

"And Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem unto his mother's brethren, and communed with them, and with all the family of the house of his mother's father, saying,

Speak, I pray you, in the ears of all the men of Shechem, Whether is better for you, either that all the sons of Jerubbaal, which are threescore and ten persons, reign over you, or that one reign over you? remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.
And his mother's brethren spake of him in the ears of all the men of Shechem all these words: and their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech; for they said, He is our brother.

And they gave him threescore and ten pieces of silver out of the house of Baal-berith, wherewith Abimelech hired vain and light persons, which followed him.

And he went unto his father's house at Ophrah, and slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal, being threescore and ten persons, upon one stone: notwithstanding yet Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left; for he hid himself.

And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem."
Now, what is interesting is Jotham’s reaction, and more precisely the prophetic parable he tells:


"And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.
The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.

But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.

But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.

And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.

And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon."
In fact, it would not be a far-fetched interpretation to read the preceding parable, not only as an anarchistic, but even as a libertarian prophecy. And there would be much more in the Bible – particularly in the New Testament – to support a libertarian reading of it. This should be the object of a future article, I guess.
As a matter a fact, the previous one-line sum-up of the Old Testament ("God saves His people, who continually fall prey to new kings") is not only Samuel’s, but even The Lord’s own saying. And the same is true of the prophecy of the evil of politics.
Samuel was a Judge. But he was getting old, and his sons did not follow his steps.

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.

And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city." [Samuel, VIII, 4–22]

"Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" [Matthew IV, 10].
My second example is even more convincing; and much more than an example! It is the third temptation of Jesus (according to Matthew, and the second according to Luke). It may be found in Matthew IV, 8–10, as well as in Luke IV, 5–8.

Jesus, "led into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil," was finally taken up into an exceeding high mountain, where the Tempter…

"…sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
How many things we should enlighten in this five verses! Let’s stress four only.

1."All these things I will give thee…." From this, it clearly follows that state power belongs to the Devil. Such a deduction is not far-fetched, at all. It is Luke’s exact saying:

"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will give it.

If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
2."All the kingdoms of the world…." What comes from the Devil is not the power of such or such state, but state power in general, geographically and chronologically speaking. It is the power of all states, state power itself – which is contrary to God’s Alliance with His people, or rather, with the whole of Humanity, as far as the New Testament in concerned.

3. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God…." If all the kingdoms of the world did not constitute an Empire of Evil, then, assuredly, Jesus would have said so. He would have replied to the Devil that their power and glory are not delivered unto him, or that they should be delivered from him and given back to The Lord, to whom they righteously belong. But Jesus does not. To the contrary, he acknowledges that state power belongs "to whomsoever [The Devil] will give it," when he only replies that it is sinful to serve and worship the latter.

4."…and him only shalt thou serve." The conjunction of those two propositions, in this very context, means nothing else than that anarchism is logically implied by the first and foremost Divine Commandment [Exodus, XX, 3]:

« Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
It is even clearer in the context of the Decalog:

"And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
It is after He has characterized Himself as a political Savior (a God saving His people from politics) that the Lord delivers His first Commandment:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Which explains why "all the kingdoms of the world" are delivered unto the Devil and whomsoever he gives them to.
Conclusion: The "King of kings."

The Lord is sometimes referred to as the "King of kings," in the Bible [e.g., Revelation, 17]. But there is no possible comparison between His King-dom and theirs. To the contrary, the latter are – all of them! necessarily! evil empires. So God says, if we believe the Bible.



Just the same, His Kingdom is sometimes referred to as the "Heaven of heavens" [e.g., Deuteronomy, 10], but the first has just nothing to deal with the blue sky above us. The "Heaven of heavens" means the Absolute sky, just as the "King of kings" is the True and Only Real One. All other kings are false ones: tempting, and deceptive, just like the blue sky (where pagan gods and semi-divinized political authorities have their homes) is only a make-belief, compared to His Kingdom.
A lot of what follows comes from Jacques Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Christianity-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0802804950/lewrockwell/). Or rather, from the original French version.
The difference between a "Judge" and a king is that the former indicates what is right, according to God’s revealed Will, while the latter substitutes his will and laws to The Lord’s Commandments. The former pushes His people closer to The Lord, Whom he serves, while the latter pushes them away from Him, and has them worship and serve himself instead. Indeed, the Jewish traditional law system is one of the best examples of a stateless and efficient justice. This point cannot be developed here, but should be in a future article.

August 1, 2008




Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/rostan1.html

Dr.3D
08-01-2008, 07:05 AM
Well, actually, they (the Israelites) were given a set of laws to follow and judges to judge those who may have broken those laws. So I guess it would really be along the lines of God being the king and the judges being the ones who made sure if His laws were broken, there would be justice.

It is along the lines of a Monarchy following the government of a republic. The actual king only set forth the laws for the republic to follow. The judges were like those of the supreme court and made sure if anybody broke those laws, they would face justice.

It is too bad our present system doesn't quite work as it should to be a republic.

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 07:10 AM
This is a great article. I'm looking forward to the next installment. I do believe a libertarian/anarchist system is the only one compatible with God's will for us as shown in the Bible. I appreciate this article for the writer's perspective and exposition of the topic.

I definitely believe that God's plan for us was not to be politically ruled over by kings or spiritually by priests. The hierarchical structure prevalent in all of these world systems is anathema to God. The Jews did not accept Jesus because he was not the King they expected or wanted, even though they should have realized from their own history and prophecy that this wasn't God's plan for them. They were inordinately concerned with power and Jesus was meek. This is a lot like the Zionists of today wanting a man of war, McCain, to be their leader as opposed to a man of peace, Paul.

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 07:13 AM
Well, actually, they (the Israelites) were given a set of laws to follow and judges to judge those who may have broken those laws. So I guess it would really be along the lines of God being the king and the judges being the ones who made sure if His laws were broken, there would be justice.
Excellent point.

Dr.3D
08-01-2008, 07:24 AM
A constitutional republic is supposed to follow the laws of the constitution and the judges are supposed to make sure if those laws are broken, there is justice.

Since God gave the Israelites the laws, I would consider them to be the equivalent of a constitution. The judges you read about in the Bible were supposed to make sure those those who broke those laws would find justice.

It isn't any different than what we are supposed to have now with our constitutional republic except God was the one who wrote their constitution and the judges we read about in the book of Judges are the equivalent to our supreme court.

As long as nobody broke the laws, they could pretty much do as they pleased.

This didn't last so long though as people like to distort what is supposed to be a good system and they allowed politics to get involved with it. Soon there were those who started writing more laws than the ones God had given and they pretty much took over.

We read about those people, they were the scribes and Pharisees.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 07:38 AM
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington

Dr.3D
08-01-2008, 07:40 AM
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington

No I didn't say it was. I was just pointing out a parallel to what we are supposed to have and what they were supposed to have.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 07:42 AM
THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 07:44 AM
No I didn't say it was. I was just pointing out a parallel to what we are supposed to have and what they were supposed to have. Nor did I say, that you said it was. ;)

Dr.3D
08-01-2008, 07:45 AM
Nor did I say, that you said it was. ;)

:D

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 07:53 AM
Since Ron visits LRC every day, I wonder if he read and how he took the OP article?

Hmmmmm?

:)

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 07:58 AM
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George WashingtonThe government was founded on libertarian principles. In my view, the United States government was the closest thing to God's intention of human governance than any other system prior (or after). I don't think Washington would disagree with me on this, whether it was the express intention of the founders or not. Obviously, the founders made a concerted effort not to create the possibility for posterity to corrupt the Republic and turn it into a theocracy.

One must remember organized "Christian Religion" looked very different in the 18th century-- and even in the 1st century-- than it did when Jesus called his disciples, taught them and sent them to spread the Good News. Even Paul's teachings begin to put the binding chains on the new believers, inserting dogmatic practices where Jesus' message had none.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 08:02 AM
The government was founded on libertarian principles. In my view, the United States government was the closest thing to God's intention of human governance than any other system prior (or after). I don't think Washington would disagree with me on this, whether it was the express intention of the founders or not. Obviously, the founders made a concerted effort not to create the possibility for posterity to corrupt the Republic and turn it into a theocracy.

One must remember organized "Christian Religion" looked very different in the 18th century-- and even in the 1st century-- than it did when Jesus called his disciples, taught them and sent them to spread the Good News. Even Paul's teachings begin to put the binding chains on the new believers, inserting dogmatic practices where Jesus' message had none.
Which libertarian principles SPECIFICALLY, justify the founding of ANY government or state, in your opinion?

Thanks! :)

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 08:08 AM
Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 08:09 AM
"That government is best which governs least." Thomas Paine

My understanding, and I'm sure you'll let me know how (and how much ;)) I am wrong, is that this Republic, through the Constitution which governs it, is a system which organizes people yet retains the rights of individuals.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 08:13 AM
"That government is best which governs least." Thomas Paine

My understanding, and I'm sure you'll let me know how (and how much ;)) I am wrong, is that this Republic, through the Constitution which governs it, is a system which organizes people yet retains the rights of individuals.

"That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Jefferson ;)

:rolleyes:

Shall I go on? :)

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 08:23 AM
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22That+government+is+best+which+governs+ least.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I'm not here to get into a battle of the wits with you. That would be dumb since even though I'm a lot of things, one of them is "not as smart as TW." There's a difference between education and condescension and I would appreciate you making your point about the OP instead of posting something and then criticizing everyone who had the audacity to actually think about it and then give their feedback.


Shall I go on? Why ask me? You know you want to.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 08:26 AM
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -- Thomas Paine

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." -- Thomas Paine

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 08:39 AM
This is what I see. TW posts an article which exposits an argument that anarchism is is compatible with both the Old and New Testament teachings in the Bible. Then he gets some responses that offer constructive criticism on the overlooked role of Judges in the article and some agreement with the OP.

Then TW decides that he needs to cut up the responses for whatever reasons and inject a little anti-Masonic propaganda into the mix because he doesn't do that enough on these boards.

And then, when asked to give his opinion of the piece he responds with large, bold-text quotes.

Seriously, did you even read the OP or did you just post it because you could write "Bible" and "Anarchism" in the title?

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 08:44 AM
This is what I see. TW posts an article which exposits an argument that anarchism is is compatible with both the Old and New Testament teachings in the Bible. Then he gets some responses that offer constructive criticism on the overlooked role of Judges in the article and some agreement with the OP.

Then TW decides that he needs to cut up the responses for whatever reasons and inject a little anti-Masonic propaganda into the mix because he doesn't do that enough on these boards.

And then, when asked to give his opinion of the piece he responds with large, bold-text quotes.

Seriously, did you even read the OP or did you just post it because you could write "Bible" and "Anarchism" in the title?

So, forgive me. :D

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 08:45 AM
So, forgive me. :DYeah, ok.

*sigh* I have no patience for this kind of behavior.

Dr.3D
08-01-2008, 08:53 AM
Just another thread to cause contention and strife. If he really wanted the opinion of anybody on the subject, he would listen instead of arguing with them. I suggest we let him talk to himself.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 08:54 AM
Yeah, ok.

*sigh* I have no patience for this kind of behavior.

Thank you. I forgive your lack patience with me.

3"And why behold the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how will thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." -- Jesus
Matthew 7:3-5 (King James Version)

Dr.3D
08-01-2008, 08:55 AM
Thank you.

I forgive your lack patience with me.

3"And why behold the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how will thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." -- Jesus
Matthew 7:3-5 (King James Version)

So get the beam out of your eye.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 08:58 AM
Just another thread to cause contention and strife. If he really wanted the opinion of anybody on the subject, he would listen instead of arguing with them. I suggest we let him talk to himself.
Who have I argued with?

Thanks! :)

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 09:00 AM
So get the beam out of your eye.
And I forgive your lack of comprehension and understanding. ;)

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 09:44 AM
"I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will , is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure." -- Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience" ( 1st paragraph )

http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/thoreau/civil/

LibertyEagle
08-01-2008, 09:52 AM
"That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Jefferson ;)

:rolleyes:

Shall I go on? :)

Yes, but clearly he believed in having a government vs. anarchism, which does not.

LibertyEagle
08-01-2008, 09:55 AM
Since Ron visits LRC every day, I wonder if he read and how he took the OP article?

Hmmmmm?

:)

He also checks Kitco every day and subscribes to the John Birch Society's New American magazine. What's your point?

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 10:00 AM
Yes, but clearly he believed in having a government vs. anarchism, which does not.
Agreed, but I don't consider Jefferson a libertarian either. ;)

mport1
08-01-2008, 10:00 AM
Interesting, although I'm an atheist anarchist.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 10:01 AM
He also checks Kitco every day and subscribes to the John Birch Society's New American magazine. What's your point? I thought that my post made my point.

On, rechecking, yes it did. :)

LibertyEagle
08-01-2008, 10:01 AM
Agreed, but I don't consider Jefferson a libertarian either. ;)

So why did you use him as an example in attempting to make your point? ;)

LibertyEagle
08-01-2008, 10:02 AM
I thought that my post made my point.

On, rechecking, yes it did. :)

Nope.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 10:03 AM
Interesting, although I'm an atheist anarchist. Do you vote? Just curious.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 10:06 AM
Nope. Since I wrote it and you did not, I think I'll just go ahead and trust my own interpretation on that one. ;)

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 10:10 AM
So why did you use him as an example in attempting to make your point? ;)
I consider Jefferson the most "libertarian" inclined of the well known founding fathers. ;) AKA not a FEDERALIST.

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 10:14 AM
Since I wrote it and you did not, I think I'll just go ahead and trust my own interpretation on that one. ;)Sometimes it helps when trying to make a point is to clarify your position so others can understand you. To say you made your point when you clearly did not (because if you had it would have been understood) is presumptuous and doesn't help your position.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 10:20 AM
Sometimes it helps when trying to make a point is to clarify your position so others can understand you. To say you made your point when you clearly did not (because if you had it would have been understood) is presumptuous and doesn't help your position.


"I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is ... try to please everybody."

;)

LittleLightShining
08-01-2008, 10:23 AM
"I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is ... try to please everybody."

;)You're something else.

I fail to see how clarifying your position so others can actually understand you relates to that comment. No one's saying change your position, just explain it better. But this is a waste of time because you'll no doubt throw another quote out with a smug wink and call it good enough.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 10:33 AM
You're something else.

I fail to see how clarifying your position so others can actually understand you relates to that comment. No one's saying change your position, just explain it better. But this is a waste of time because you'll no doubt throw another quote out with a smug wink and call it good enough.
Noted! Thank you for your feedback.

Apparition
08-01-2008, 11:00 AM
Thank you. I forgive your lack patience with me.

3"And why behold the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how will thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." -- Jesus
Matthew 7:3-5 (King James Version)

Then it goes on to say:

6"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 11:08 AM
Then it goes on to say:

6"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
;)

mport1
08-01-2008, 11:43 AM
Do you vote? Just curious.

Yes. I agree with Walter Block's logic on this.


Suppose a slave master allows his slaves to choose between Overseer Goody, who has a very light and judicious touch with the whip, and Overseer Baddy, who never met a bloody back he didn’t like. The slaves take up the master on his offer, and vote for Goody. Are they thereby demonstrating support for slavery, for goodness sakes? No; they are only registering a preference for Goody over Baddy. Even Spooner, who might be considered patron saint of this viewpoint, regarded voting, and, presumably, holding public office, as a defensive, not an invasive, act.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 11:45 AM
Yes. I agree with Walter Block's logic on this.


Thanks! Do you vote for theists?

Thanks! :)

mport1
08-01-2008, 11:52 AM
Thanks! Do you vote for theists?

Thanks! :)

Yep, voted for Ron Paul. I could care less if people follow religions as long as they are the best candidate for eliminating as much of the state as possible.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 11:56 AM
Yep, voted for Ron Paul. I could care less if people follow religions as long as they are the best candidate for eliminating as much of the state as possible. So, an atheist anarchist statist that votes for theists. Have I got that right? :confused:

mport1
08-01-2008, 12:05 PM
So, an atheist anarchist statist that votes for theists. Have I got that right? :confused:

An anarchist, athiest who votes for minarchists.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 12:09 PM
An anarchist, athiest who votes for minarchists. An anarchist, atheist statist that votes for theistic statists. :rolleyes:

mport1
08-01-2008, 12:11 PM
An anarchist, atheist statist that votes for theistic statists. :rolleyes:

How am I a statist? And I don't care about somebody's religion so long as they don't force it on other people.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 12:17 PM
How am I a statist? And I don't care about somebody's religion so long as they don't force it on other people.
If you vote, how are you not a statist? You are supporting the state voluntarily. I'll just let you try and rationalize voluntarily supporting the theistic statists.

mport1
08-01-2008, 12:30 PM
If you vote, how are you not a statist? You are supporting the state voluntarily. I'll just let you try and rationalize voluntarily supporting the theistic statists.

I am not supporting the state. Again, back to the slavemaster analogy. If you are a slave and you have the choice to vote for a master who beats you constantly, forces you to work long hours, and practically starves you or a master who is not as bad (doesn't beat you, makes you work less hours, and gives you more food), does voting for the better slave master support slavery? No.

I vote for libertarian candidates in attempts to scale back the state, however I would not stop opposing the state even if it was full of people like Ron Paul. I've got no problem with not voting though since I think having a ton of non-voters is also good.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 12:36 PM
I am not supporting the state. Again, back to the slavemaster analogy. If you are a slave and you have the choice to vote for a master who beats you constantly, forces you to work long hours, and practically starves you or a master who is not as bad (doesn't beat you, makes you work less hours, and gives you more food), does voting for the better slave master support slavery? No.

I vote for libertarian candidates in attempts to scale back the state, however I would not stop opposing the state even if it was full of people like Ron Paul. I've got no problem with not voting though since I think having a ton of non-voters is also good.
Voting your way to freedom is like drinking your way to sober.<IMHO>

Whatever works and makes sense to you, I guess. :rolleyes:

Godfather89
08-01-2008, 03:47 PM
Jesus Christ said:

Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.

When you refer back to the ancient Greek of the matter you come to Repent meaning Metanoia which means, Change The Way You Think. Now for a while I came to the connection between this Revolution Movement as well as this call for Change by Christ. I found it interesting and said That Christ is definitely a Revolutionary, the first Patriot in sorts.

Now he was anti-state although he did not prefer to use violence against the secular Roman State but he did not want to cuddle with it either, he wanted sovereignty for his people as well. Unfortunately it was lost because, of the violent Jewish "terrorist" of their day fought and instigated the destruction of their own nation. However, Rome did collapse inevitably I believe because of Christ teachings of nonviolent resistance.

He even challenged the status quo of his own time against the Pharisees, Sadducee and teachers of the law. He was kind of like the first American in that he was vigilant against both Foreign (Roman) and Domestic (Crooked Jews within the Sanhedrin) threats.

To me Christ symbolizes Revolution and Change and not a force for the maintenance of the status quo, as he has made to appear to be.

Andrew-Austin
08-01-2008, 03:53 PM
If you vote, how are you not a statist? You are supporting the state voluntarily. I'll just let you try and rationalize voluntarily supporting the theistic statists.


Voting your way to freedom is like drinking your way to sober.<IMHO>

Whatever works and makes sense to you, I guess. :rolleyes:


Go outside man, you need some fucking air.

LibertyEagle
08-01-2008, 03:53 PM
:) Welcome to the Forums, Godfather.

LibertyEagle
08-01-2008, 03:57 PM
I consider Jefferson the most "libertarian" inclined of the well known founding fathers. ;) AKA not a FEDERALIST.

Yes, but he still was in favor of government, albeit small. and limited. So, for you to use him as an example to further your suggestion that anarchy is best, is rather strange.

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 05:03 PM
Go outside man, you need some fucking air. What number in line are you, for a brain transplant?

Truth Warrior
08-01-2008, 05:09 PM
Yes, but he still was in favor of government, albeit small. and limited. So, for you to use him as an example to further your suggestion that anarchy is best, is rather strange. You just gotta do the best that you can with what ya got.

Strange is often only in the statist mind of the erroneous interpreter.<IMHO>

Andrew-Austin
08-01-2008, 05:50 PM
What number in line are you, for a brain transplant?

I'm standing in line right after you. ;)

Sorry, but <IMHO> its kinda loony to be harassing people for voting.

UnReconstructed
08-01-2008, 06:18 PM
I didn't read this whole thread but the purpose of the judges in the OT was to deliver Israel from oppression... slavery... servitude to another nation or king. They did not enforce any laws.

Ref: Judges 3:1, 3:15, 3:31, 4:1 - 6:1 etc

I don't believe that a correlation can be made between the Judges and the judges we have today.

Also, in a few posts that I did read in this thread, I think I'm with Truth Warrior.

AmericaFyeah92
08-01-2008, 07:58 PM
Truth Warrior, what is it that you are advocating/trying to prove here?:confused:
(in order)
1. You post an article that states the bible is anarchist
2. You say the US government/constitution is in no way founded on Christianity
3. You say all religions/governments are a farce and/or fraud
4. You say we can't "vote ourselves to liberty", but offer no alternative

This could have been a great thread.......the article is very worthwhile:mad:

Truth Warrior
08-02-2008, 02:07 PM
I'm standing in line right after you. ;)

Sorry, but <IMHO> its kinda loony to be harassing people for voting.

Move to the front of the line. You need a new one much more than I do. ;)

Demobcrazy just doesn't cut it for me. :p http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1533444&postcount=3

Truth Warrior
08-02-2008, 02:08 PM
I didn't read this whole thread but the purpose of the judges in the OT was to deliver Israel from oppression... slavery... servitude to another nation or king. They did not enforce any laws.

Ref: Judges 3:1, 3:15, 3:31, 4:1 - 6:1 etc

I don't believe that a correlation can be made between the Judges and the judges we have today.

Also, in a few posts that I did read in this thread, I think I'm with Truth Warrior.
Thanks! ;) I appreciate that. :)

Truth Warrior
08-02-2008, 02:34 PM
Truth Warrior, what is it that you are advocating/trying to prove here?:confused:
(in order)
1. You post an article that states the bible is anarchist
2. You say the US government/constitution is in no way founded on Christianity
3. You say all religions/governments are a farce and/or fraud
4. You say we can't "vote ourselves to liberty", but offer no alternative

This could have been a great thread.......the article is very worthwhile:mad:
1. I really like LRC ( more some days than others), as does Ron.
2. And you KNOW that it was? How?
3. Yep, obsolete, barbaric human institutions that help largely to keep our species "stuck" in barbarism.
4. I'm more for freedom than liberty. As in "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity". ;)

Another alternative: ;)

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends. http://www.voluntaryist.com/ (http://www.voluntaryist.com/)

Yep, RPF threads just tend to go where they go, and take on a life and a personality all of their own. :rolleyes: Whatcha gonna do? < shrug > < sigh >

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

Dr.3D
08-02-2008, 03:00 PM
I didn't read this whole thread but the purpose of the judges in the OT was to deliver Israel from oppression... slavery... servitude to another nation or king. They did not enforce any laws.

Ref: Judges 3:1, 3:15, 3:31, 4:1 - 6:1 etc

I don't believe that a correlation can be made between the Judges and the judges we have today.

Also, in a few posts that I did read in this thread, I think I'm with Truth Warrior.

From this set of scriptures you can get an idea of what the judges were for.
Exodus 18:13 - 27

Just because the judges did those other things you have mentioned, that does not preclude them passing judgment on the people according to the laws.

AmericaFyeah92
08-02-2008, 03:56 PM
4. I'm more for freedom than liberty. As in "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity". ;)



"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Freedom is for wild animals. i.e. Jungle Law.

Liberty is for civiliziation. i.e. The Constitution

I'll ask again, what was your purpose in posting the article? (i'm an atheist by the way)

Truth Warrior
08-02-2008, 04:13 PM
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Freedom is for wild animals. i.e. Jungle Law.

Liberty is for civiliziation. i.e. The Constitution

I'll ask again, what was your purpose in posting the article? (i'm an atheist by the way)
One of Ron's POTUS campaign mottoes, "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity". I like it. ;)

What? Might makes right? Biggest gang wins? :D

You can call barbarism, "civilization" until the cows come home. It's still just frickin' barbarism. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarism

Constitution? :p

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html <--- civilization ;)

Point / purpose? As always, "intelligent discussion". :)

AmericaFyeah92
08-02-2008, 04:24 PM
One of Ron's POTUS campaign mottoes, "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity". I like it. ;)

What? Might makes right? Biggest gang wins? :D

You can call barbarism, "civilization" until the cows come home. It's still just frickin' barbarism. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarism

Constitution? :p


Point / purpose? As always, "intelligent discussion". :)

I think you and I are using different definitions. I view "freedom" as just that: being able to do whatever you want. I view "liberty" as being able to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm others

And are you saying the Constitution is irrelevant?

Truth Warrior
08-02-2008, 05:50 PM
I think you and I are using different definitions. I view "freedom" as just that: being able to do whatever you want. I view "liberty" as being able to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm others

And are you saying the Constitution is irrelevant?

Nope, I ( just earlier today BTW ) even started an RPF thread on the "Non-Aggression" Principle. ;)

Uhhh, what did the linked article I gave you say about the US Constitution? :rolleyes:

AND

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.