Help me collect verses and Christian theological concepts that support Libertarianism! [Archive]

View Full Version : Help me collect verses and Christian theological concepts that support Libertarianism!

guitarlifter

01-11-2011, 11:46 PM

I think it's so important to be able to show people how libertarianism is the ideology that God would want someone to have concerning the role of government. Help me collect verses and scripturally backed Christian theological concepts that support Libertarianism. This thread isn't here to argue the merits of Christianity, whether God exists or any of that, so, if you wish to argue such things, just go somewhere else, please. It is here so that, for those who do believe, they can contribute to this thread.

Corydoras

01-12-2011, 12:28 AM

Which type of Christianity? Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Protestant? Different Christian groups have understood liberty very differently.

pcosmar

01-12-2011, 12:31 AM

Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage
Galatians 5:1

Kregisen

01-12-2011, 12:34 AM

If you're trying to persuade a christian to believe libertarianism is morally right, then ask why God created people. He created people so they could make choices. (if people can't make choices and choose God then we're no different than angels) What's the point of creating people if there's a government that won't let them make choices, even when there are sinful possible outcomes such as prostitution.

Governments are supposed to be here to stop people from committing crimes against others, not to institute its own set of moral values and act like God.

pcosmar

01-12-2011, 12:34 AM

Dupe.
forum bugged out

TER

01-12-2011, 12:39 AM

Which type of Christianity? Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Protestant? Different Christian groups have understood liberty very differently.

This is true in many ways. The common thread, however, stemming even from before God revealing Himself in Christ (think Socrates, Lao Tzu, Moses, Buddha, etc. etc) is that true freedom is living a righteous and virtuous life in reflection and accordance to the divine attributes of God (justice, truth, love, etc.)

How does this relate to Libertarianism as a philosophy or a mode of civil government? I dunno, but free will (which is a gift from God) must somehow play in.

YumYum

01-12-2011, 12:47 AM

G-d will destroy all the world's governments or kingdoms, including the United States. Daniel 2:44 says:

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom (government) that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms (governments) and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

guitarlifter

01-12-2011, 01:35 AM

Which type of Christianity? Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Protestant? Different Christian groups have understood liberty very differently.

Probably protestant, but the more denominations that we can apply libertarianism to Christianity, the better. Also, if you have any verses that condemn or think poorly of coercion, or anything that is politically not libertarian in thought would be nice as well.

Sola_Fide

01-12-2011, 01:40 AM

Psalm 149:

"May the praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment on the peoples, to bind their kings with fetters, their nobles with shackles of iron, to carry out the sentence written against them— this is the glory of all his faithful people."

In Scripture, the "double-edged sword" is symbolic for the Word of God itself:

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double- edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12

The Word of God itself is the double edged sword that binds the kings with shackles. The State cannot ever be autonomous or above the Law of God. The State is bound by the authority of God. This invalidates Statism.

JohnEngland

01-12-2011, 02:21 AM

MaxPower

01-12-2011, 02:46 AM

1. Verses such as "Judge not, lest ye be judged; condemn not, and you shall not be condemned," "When a man strikes you on the one cheek, turn him also the other," and "Put your sword back in its place, for they who live by the sword shall perish by the sword" demonstrate the need for tolerance, non-violence and non-aggression on the part of Christians, all of which are concepts flatly incompatible with big government, given the State's use of violence or the threat thereof as its basic mode of operation.

2. As applies to human-on-human interaction, Jesus is individualistic and anti-authoritarian, and seems generally anti-State. In Matthew, Chapter 4, he rejects the devil's offer of the power to rule over all the kingdoms on earth in favor of a role as an individual with no State authority over anyone. In Luke, Chapter 13, he responds in openly defiant and disparaging fashion to the news that Herod, head of state in his home region, has it out for him, calling Herod a "fox" and effectively declaring his intention to altogether ignore his wishes. He knowingly incites tax collectors to leave their posts, and consistently speaks of tax collection as a categorically immoral profession, analogous to (as it is often rhetorically paired with) prostitution; it may then be argued that if compulsory tax collection is an immoral act, the system of compulsory taxation itself cannot be morally justifiable.

3. Contrary to the arguments of those who advocate compulsory wealth redistribution and abolition or "softening" of private property rights as an expression of the Christian principles of compassion and giving, there is no evidence Jesus ever gave his disciples permission to forcibly wring "charity" from third parties, or that he opposed the notion of private property rights, and indeed, a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Jesus' call for radical generosity and a non-materialistic lifestyle no more denies that one has a right to property than his commendation of the idea of "laying down one's life for his friends" denies the right to life; I doubt that most of the Christians who advocate compulsory wealth redistribution and the debasement of property rights would (consistent with the logic of the preceding proposition) support government-mandated mortal sacrifice and a general disregard for the wrongness of killing. One individual's moral call to give does not grant another individual or group of individuals the right to steal, any more than one person's moral call to self-sacrifice grants others moral permission to kill.

Jesus clearly agrees with the injunctions not to murder or steal, and thus, implicitly, with the ("negative," in legal terms) rights to life and property. Moreover, looking at, say, Matthew Chapter 20, we find in the parable of the vineyard a clear endorsement of the basic underlying concepts of a free market economy. The vineyard owner (who is the moral authority figure of the parable and is analogous to God) has made a series of private contracts with several other individuals to do work for him in exchange for money. One of them complains that the owner gave better deals to other workers after he had been hired, to which our God stand-in replies, "Did you not agree with me for a denarius?"- implying the validity of the obligation of contracts and of the criterion of mutual consent for such contracts to be made- and goes on to say, "Is it not lawful for me to do as I wish with my own things?", which is an obvious endorsement of the existence of private property rights and their validity in granting the owner liberty to use and exchange such property according to his will. This parable is an analogy for the kingdom of heaven, of course, as a matter of "contract" between an individual and his God, but the very fact that the analogy is applied to this situation implies that Jesus endorses the rightfulness of the hypothetical actions of the landowner; it would hardly make sense to advertise God and his kingdom by comparing them to a situation in which the analogous figure behaves immorally and outside the realm of his rights.

bunklocoempire

01-12-2011, 03:04 AM

1st Samuel.

8:1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 8:2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beer-sheba. 8:3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 8:5 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.

8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

8:7 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.

8:8 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.

8:9 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.

8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 8:11 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. 8:12 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.

8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 8:18 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.

8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 8:20 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.

*EDIT: Then they were all like "Baaaa, baaaaa, baaaa, we want a freedom cage, we're done thinkin' for ourselves -baaaaa."* ;) < (not an actual verse)

8:21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. 8:22 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.

Bunkloco

guitarlifter

01-12-2011, 03:46 AM

Sola_Fide

01-12-2011, 06:32 AM

"Christians" who try to twist Jesus' commands for private charity into State-imposed wealth distribution have no exegetical grounds to do so.

They read-in their view of socialism into the Scriptures instead of letting the Scriptures speak for themselves.

The Bible ONLY teaches free market capitalism. It does not in any way teach that the commands for charity are to be subsumed by the State.

fisharmor

01-12-2011, 06:49 AM

Well, bunklocoempire already beat me to 1 Samuel 8, though I would have posted ESV.

fisharmor

01-12-2011, 06:55 AM

Matthew 19:16-22, also in Mark 10

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

The important part here is that verse 23 does NOT have Christ saying "Hold on a minnit there, buddy, I said GIVE TO THE POOR" whereupon he holds a gun to the man's head and threatens to throw him in a rape dungeon for the rest of this life if he doesn't comply.

RyanRSheets

01-12-2011, 07:27 AM

The entire story of Adam and Eve is an easy one with regard to moral legislation like the drug war and prostitution. The apple represents choice.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 07:55 AM

Here are some good ones:

During the period of the judges the Israelites governed themselves in a stateless society (Judges 21:25).

Gideon the judge explicitly rejected an opportunity to rule over the Israelites (Judges 8:22-23).

When the Shechemites did place themselves under the rulership of Gideon's son, Abimelek, God pubished them for it (Judges 9:1-25).

Likewise, when all Israel chose to place themselves under the rulership of a king, God, through the prophet Samuel, warned them that they would be subjected to taxes, conscription, and eminent domain, clearly implying that all of those are bad things (1 Samuel 8).

1 Kings 21 - King Ahab and Queen Jezebel condemned for taking Naboth's vineyard (eminent domain).

Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant." (Mat 21:24-26)

It's worth asking if Christians are being obedient to these words if, when they use their vote as a way to pursue the enactment of legislation that tyrannizes other people, placing them under government powers without their consent.

zyphex

01-12-2011, 08:22 AM

"There is no morality without freedom." - Pope John Paul II (On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason)

"Truth and freedom either go hand in hand or together they perish in misery." - Pope John Paul II (On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason)

fisharmor

01-12-2011, 08:29 AM

(Slaps forehead)

"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. "

Let's not forget the primary Christian doctrine which has been shredded by our government: Just War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war)
Here, the ingenuous Christian would have to concede that in matters of war, we've veered pretty far from matters of Christian doctrine.
We're not even supposed to have a standing army.
Our standing armed forces very much take away the liberty of its members, and knowingly, on both sides.
They are engaged in wars that break practically every single tenet of Jus ad Bellum.

Probably not the best argument against frothing-at-the-mouth-to-kill-brown-people sorts of Christians, but it's very much a clean break from the majority Christian doctrine, and we can't really say it's all in the name of liberty.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 08:36 AM

How about some simple logic arguments:

"If stealing is immoral and the government steals your money, the income tax is therefore immoral."

Of course, it requires a bit more expanding, but I think that the argument for libertarianism from the Christian perspective can be made quite logically.

I think this syllogism is valid. But most Christians won't. Most Christians infer from passages like Matthew 22:15-22 ("Give unto Caesar...") and Romans 13:7 ("tax to whom tax is due...") that taxation must be morally acceptable. This implies that God has some kind of a double-standard, where he judges the rulers by some moral law that's different from the moral law he judges others by. For most of my life I believed this had to be the case. I have recently realized that this belief was not based on Scripture, but just on my inadvertent normalizing of the world I was used to, and refusing to accept that something that I saw as innate to human society (the state) could be an inherently immoral institution.

But the Bible actually teaches very clearly that God does not have a double standard. He does not judge with partiality (Deuteronomy 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7). Nor does he want us to (Deuteronomy 1:17; Proverbs 24:23). He does not judge rulers any differently than paupers (Job 34:19).

In fact, one very important detail in Matthew 22:15-22 that most readers miss is that the way the Pharisees and Herodians (n.b. Herodian=statist) began their question to Jesus was, "We know that you are no respecter of persons..." (i.e. we know that you do not have partiality or a double standard). The inference I draw from this is that they're setting up the question so as to imply that if Jesus allows for taxation, then he is holding Caesar to a different standard than everyone else who is not allowed to steal. When you notice that, you also notice that nowhere in the passage does Jesus reject their premise. His entire answer is predicated on the assumption that Caesar is judged by the same law as everyone else, so that "Thou shalt not steal" applies to him no less than anyone.

When the passage is read with that recognition, you also notice some other things. Nowhere in the passage does Jesus say that it is morally right for Caesar to tax people. He does imply that we should pay taxes. But telling people to pay taxes is not the same thing as letting those who collect them off the hook. You might compare this to Matthew 5:41, where Jesus tells his followers that when a Roman soldier compels them to carry their gear, they should obey and go two miles, rather than just one. In that passage as well, nothing Jesus says implies that the Roman soldiers who do that are acting morally. Both passages advise followers of Jesus to submit to the tyranny inflicted on them by a tyrant. Neither passage gives us any information about what Jesus would say to the tyrants themselves about what they do. I see that as similar to someone today advising a loved one that if they ever get mugged by an armed robber, they should give them whatever they ask for rather than get killed. And when we do see passages in the Bible that address the rulers themselves, we find that their robbery of their subjects really is regarded as immoral (1 Samuel 8; 1 Chronicles 21).

My thoughts on Romans 13 are similar. But since this post is getting long I won't go into that now.

SovereignMN

01-12-2011, 08:41 AM

Mark 14: 1-9
1 Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were scheming to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. 2 “But not during the festival,” they said, “or the people may riot.”
3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages[a] and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.
6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9 Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

YumYum

01-12-2011, 08:46 AM

I think you're reading too much into it. Jesus said "My Kingdom is no part of this world." He could care less about what governments require, regarding taxes or regulations, as long as it didn't violate G-d's law. Peter said "We must obey G-d as ruler, rather than men." So, if some law made by a government forces a follower of Jesus to violate G-d's law or his/her conscience, than that follower would not obey the government. For instance, worshiping Caesar. Also, if G-d is against taxes, why was their a "temple tax"?

erowe1

01-12-2011, 08:48 AM

Elwar

01-12-2011, 08:48 AM

YumYum

01-12-2011, 08:54 AM

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".

On the questions of taxes:
"Should we pay or shouldn't we?" Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar’s tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose name and inscription were on it. They answered, “Caesar’s,” and he responded “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.”

What is on our currency? "Federal Reserve Note"...so give to the Federal Reserve what is the Federal Reserve's.

If everyone did this, then there would no longer be a Federal Reserve.

So...

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's = End the Fed!

So, the point is we live in Satan's system and the worldly governments are under his authority. We are not focused on these governments. We are focused on G-d's Kingdom, or His "government" which is discussed in Ephesians. If you believe the writings of Paul, we are "ambassadors of Jesus" while here on Earth. So, as any ambassador, we respect the laws of the land as long as they don't violate G-d's law.

YumYum

01-12-2011, 08:56 AM

But stealing does violate God's law.

Then why was there a temple tax, if taxation is "stealing"?

erowe1

01-12-2011, 09:00 AM

So, the point is we live in Satan's system and the worldly governments are under his authority. We are not focused on these governments. We are focused on G-d's Kingdom, or His "government" which is discussed in Ephesians. If you believe the writings of Paul, we are "ambassadors of Jesus" while here on Earth. So, as any ambassador, we respect the laws of the land as long as they don't violate G-d's law.

I see two ways someone could go from this. Either they can eschew participation in politics, which some Christians do, particularly from the anabaptist tradition, or they can participate in politics, but only in such a way as their participation is as enemies of Satan (and thus enemies of the state), rather than allies, so that they work to weaken and dismantle it from within.

But one option that is not available to Christians who see the state as the realm of Satan is to be involved in politics in such a way as to strengthen the state.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 09:02 AM

Then why was there a temple tax, if taxation is "stealing"?

1) Could you give the specific reference from Scripture that shows God's approval of a "Temple tax" that you're talking about, so that we can make sure we're both discussing the same thing?

2) I never said all taxation was theft. But whenever it is theft (i.e. whenever it involves one party taking property from another party without their consent), then it violates God's law. Paying dues to a club, or donations to a church, or a toll for driving on a road, etc. might all be called "taxes" by someone. But they are not theft. The key point, which is thoroughly biblical, is that if something is theft when you or I do it, then it's also theft when any state ruler does it.

Elwar

01-12-2011, 09:04 AM

YumYum

01-12-2011, 09:09 AM

I see two ways someone could go from this. Either they can eschew participation in politics, which some Christians do, particularly from the anabaptist tradition, or they can participate politics, but only in such a way as their participation is as enemies of Satan (and thus enemies of the state), rather than allies, so that they work to weaken and dismantle it from within.

But one option that is not available to Christians who see the state as the realm of Satan is to be involved in politics in such a way as to strengthen the state.

Don't the governments allow us to preach the "Good News"? That is our commission, and that is to preach; not fight the governments. I will vote for whatever allows me to worship Jesus freely and to preach about the "Good News". If paying a "tax" provides those benefits so that the government allows me to do this, so be it. This is Satan's system of things, not G-d's. We have to live in it for now, and as a follower of Jesus, I don't want to stumble any sheep. Worldly governments are temporary; G-d's government will last forever.

YumYum

01-12-2011, 09:13 AM

japes

01-12-2011, 09:13 AM

Acts 4:32-35

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Some people have pointed to this passage as an early form of communism. In fact communism is more akin to a Christian heresy. True Christianity emphasizes, as Francis Schaeffer puts it, "the compassionate use of accumulated wealth." Communism is the forced distribution of wealth/labor/property, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Right after the Acts 4 passage above, the Libertarian idea becomes clear:

Acts 5:1-3

1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.

The rest of passage makes it clear that Ananias and Sapphira's only sin was lying about how much they sold their land for, not holding back a portion of the sale of the land. God wants us to be free to give according to our conscience. Libertarian Christians understand that more wealth will be distributed compassionately in a free society than any other.

YumYum

01-12-2011, 09:31 AM

1) Could you give the specific reference from Scripture that shows God's approval of a "Temple tax" that you're talking about, so that we can make sure we're both discussing the same thing?

2) I never said all taxation was theft. But whenever it is theft (i.e. whenever it involves one party taking property from another party without their consent), then it violates God's law. Paying dues to a club, or donations to a church, or a toll for driving on a road, etc. might all be called "taxes" by someone. But they are not theft. The key point, which is thoroughly biblical, is that if something is theft when you or I do it, then it's also theft when any state ruler does it.

Are the spoils of war "theft"?

Numbers 31:28 says:

"Collect a tax for the LORD. From the soldiers who served in the war collect one out of every 500 things. This includes people, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats."

They took the spoils of war, and gave it to the temple. That is not very Libertarian, or is it?

1st Chronicles 26:27 says:

"Some of the plunder taken in battle they dedicated for the repair of the temple of the LORD."

erowe1

01-12-2011, 09:32 AM

Don't the governments allow us to preach the "Good News"? That is our commission, and that is to preach; not fight the governments. I will vote for whatever allows me to worship Jesus freely and to preach about the "Good News". If paying a "tax" provides those benefits so that the government allows me to do this, so be it. This is Satan's system of things, not G-d's. We have to live in it for now, and as a follower of Jesus, I don't want to stumble any sheep. Worldly governments are temporary; G-d's government will last forever.

I agree that we're not commissioned to fight the state. That's why I included the other option of eschewing political involvement. But to whatever degree we are involved in politics, I don't see how we can take Satan's side (using your own premise of the state being an inherently satanic institution), and imagine that we are right to do that. To whatever degree we are involved in politics, it must be in such a way as to do good, and not evil. If we use whatever influence we've been entrusted with to increase tyranny, rather than to decrease it, we sin. As Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you."

erowe1

01-12-2011, 09:35 AM

Let me ask both of you guys. If you lived in Nero's time, would you have fought him? Would you have stood up to his tyranny, or would you have gone to your death, being fed to lions, along with other faithful followers of Jesus? G-d is against murder, and yet the first century followers of Jesus went to their deaths. Why didn't they fight Nero? How do you explain this?

I probably wouldn't have fought him. I also wouldn't have sided with him against the Christians. Today in America, we have multiple roles. One of those roles is as voters. In this respect we are in the position of influencers of the state. We can eschew that influence. I do consider that a valid option, and maybe even the only right option. But if we don't eschew it, and if we choose to use that power, we shouldn't use it to increase the strength of the Church's enemy, Nero, we should use that influence to decrease it.

YumYum

01-12-2011, 09:35 AM

I agree that we're not commissioned to fight the state. That's why I included the other option of eschewing political involvement. But to whatever degree we are involved in politics, I don't see how we can take Satan's side (using your own premise of the state being an inherently satanic institution), and imagine that we are right to do that. To whatever degree we are involved in politics, it must be in such a way as to do good, and not evil. If we use whatever influence we've been entrusted with to increase tyranny, rather than to decrease it, we sin. As Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you."

I agree with you on that. We need to utilize the governments so that we can spread the good news. In the meantime, we should not violate our own consciences, and if someone's conscience tells them not to pay taxes, well, that is between them and Jesus. I judge no man!

japes

01-12-2011, 09:36 AM

I wasn't going to bring this up but I thought it might be a fun one for those who haven't read it yet. I think Jesus just inflated the drachma:

Matthew 17:24-26

24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”

26 “From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

Besides the hilarious thing about the fish, it seems like Jesus is saying he is exempt from paying earthly taxes because he's from a greater kingdom. No matter how you look at this it seems obvious Jesus did not have a high regard for the tax system of his day.

Elwar

01-12-2011, 09:45 AM

Besides the hilarious thing about the fish, it seems like Jesus is saying he is exempt from paying earthly taxes because he's from a greater kingdom. No matter how you look at this it seems obvious Jesus did not have a high regard for the tax system of his day.

I always found this as a great guide for how taxes should be done. Tax foreigners...exempt citizens.

Who would object to that type of system? (besides the foreigners that can't vote)

erowe1

01-12-2011, 09:46 AM

Are the spoils of war "theft"?

Numbers 31:28 says:

"Collect a tax for the LORD. From the soldiers who served in the war collect one out of every 500 things. This includes people, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats."

They took the spoils of war, and gave it to the temple. That is not very Libertarian, or is it?

1st Chronicles 26:27 says:

"Some of the plunder taken in battle they dedicated for the repair of the temple of the LORD."

1) It appears that both of those passages are talking about plunder from war.

2) Your first example is not for the Temple, since it's from before the Temple existed.

3) Your second example, which does refer to the Temple, merely recites what happened, without giving any comment as to whether what they did was right.

4) When it comes to wars in the Old Testament, there are some examples that are easier for me to deal with than others. Believing that God judges state rulers by the same law he judges everyone else, so that stealing and murder are still stealing and murder when they do it, does not mean we have to be pacifists. It just means we can't be imperialists. We can still use violence to defend ourselves.

5) Speaking for myself, I do consider the account of the conquest of the promised land problematic. I think it can be explained in a way that's consistent with God's law, but I don't feel like I know what the right explanation is. I admit, it does superficially seem like an aggressive war of conquest. However, whatever the best way to explain it is, one thing that is clear is that, whether it was an aggressive war of conquest or not, it clearly was not something that we in the Church are to repeat in any literal way (although it could perhaps be read as a type that prefigures our spiritual warfare in some way).

erowe1

01-12-2011, 09:49 AM

it seems obvious Jesus did not have a high regard for the tax system of his day.

He definitely didn't have a high regard for it. Any time he used the phrase "tax collector" it was practically a synonym for "sinner" (Matthew 5:46; 9:10-11; 11:19; 21:31-32; etc.).

YumYum

01-12-2011, 09:51 AM

I wasn't going to bring this up but I thought it might be a fun one for those who haven't read it yet. I think Jesus just inflated the drachma:

Matthew 17:24-26

Besides the hilarious thing about the fish, it seems like Jesus is saying he is exempt from paying earthly taxes because he's from a greater kingdom. No matter how you look at this it seems obvious Jesus did not have a high regard for the tax system of his day.

But the point is, He did pay the temple tax. As followers of Jesus, we are focused on G-d's kingdom. Worldly governments are temporary, and G-d allows them to exist to fulfill His purpose. If Satan's governments need taxes which allows us to preach, let them have their tax. In fact, I believe the churches should pay taxes, so that they can guarantee their right to freedom of worship. Nothing in Satan's system is free. Let Satan have his taxes and his governments. This is all going to go down, anyway. We look to G-d's kingdom; the same Kingdom that Jesus preached about.

Elwar

01-12-2011, 09:54 AM

He definitely didn't have a high regard for it. Any time he used the phrase "tax collector" it was practically a synonym for "sinner" (Matthew 5:46; 9:10-11; 11:19; 21:31-32; etc.).

I asked my priest about this while at a dinner. He said that in that day tax collectors were kinda like hired goons sent out to the villages to round up taxes. And they weren't all that professional about it.

YumYum

01-12-2011, 09:56 AM

I asked my priest about this while at a dinner. He said that in that day tax collectors were kinda like hired goons sent out to the villages to round up taxes. And they weren't all that professional about it.

Tax collectors were cheats. They took more than they were supposed to and put it in their pockets. These were Jews ripping off other Jews. That is one reason they were so hated.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 09:56 AM

But the point is, He did pay the temple tax. As followers of Jesus, we are focused on G-d's kingdom. Worldly governments are temporary, and G-d allows them to exist to fulfill His purpose. If Satan's governments need taxes which allows us to preach, let them have their tax. In fact, I believe the churches should pay taxes, so that they can guarantee their right to freedom of worship. Nothing in Satan's system is free. Let Satan have his taxes and his governments. This is all going to go down, anyway. We look to G-d's kingdom; the same Kingdom that Jesus preached about.

The application I see is that when we are in the role of taxpayers, we should pay the tax (just like, when we're in the role of mugging victims, we should give the mugger our money rather than our life).

But what about when we're in the role of voters? Should we use that power to support tyranny or to oppose it?

And where do you get the idea that giving Satan more money somehow allows us to preach? Satan uses that power we give him to oppose the preaching of the Gospel, not to support it. All through the Bible, all through history, and all around the world, we see the recurring pattern that as the state increases in its power, the Church tends to lose.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 09:58 AM

I asked my priest about this while at a dinner. He said that in that day tax collectors were kinda like hired goons sent out to the villages to round up taxes. And they weren't all that professional about it.

That sounds like the IRS.

But was he implying that it would have been better if they were more professional about it (whatever that means)? My house was broken into once, and I'm glad the guy who did it wasn't more professional.

Freedom 4 all

01-12-2011, 10:01 AM

I just had a crazy thought the other day. I might be way off here, but do you ever get the feeling that the devil is a lot like an undercover cop? I mean, he spends half his time trying to get good people to sin or break the law and then enjoys sadistically punishing them for it. The state's tactics on the war on drugs can be viewed as straight up satanic.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 10:02 AM

Tax collectors were cheats. They took more than they were supposed to and put it in their pockets. These were Jews ripping off other Jews. That is one reason they were so hated.

So like, when Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him." he was referring to how the tax collectors took more than they were supposed to (supposed to according to whose law I wonder?). What about the prostitutes? Was their sin also that they charged too much?

YumYum

01-12-2011, 10:07 AM

The application I see is that when we are in the role of taxpayers, we should pay the tax (just like, when we're in the role of mugging victims, we should give the mugger our money rather than our life).

But what about when we're in the role of voters? Should we use that power to support tyranny or to oppose it?

And where do you get the idea that giving Satan more money somehow allows us to preach? Satan uses that power we give him to oppose the preaching of the Gospel, not to support it. All through the Bible, all through history, and all around the world, we see the recurring pattern that as the state increases in its power, the Church tends to lose.

My conscience allows me to vote; in fact encourages me to vote. So, I agree with you there. The governments of the world are only here because G-d allows them to be here. We are "foreigners" in a "foreign land", and because we look forward to G-d's Kingdom, we are trying to just get by. Everything associated with this system is going to go "bye-bye", so it is up to each follower of Jesus to listen to his/her own conscience and decide how much they want to be involved with fighting Satan's system.

YumYum

01-12-2011, 10:15 AM

So like, when Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him." he was referring to how the tax collectors took more than they were supposed to (supposed to according to whose law I wonder?). What about the prostitutes? Was their sin also that they charged too much?

Jesus was referring to the tax collectors and the prostitutes because the Jewish leaders had condemned them; not Jesus. The tax collectors and the prostitutes accepted what Jesus was saying, while the Jewish leaders refused to accept Him, so he was throwing it in their faces how the tax collectors and prostitutes would be rewarded before the Jewish leaders would. The Jewish leaders sinned against Holy Spirit. They witnessed Jesus performing miracles and yet refused to accept Him. Can you imagine the anger the Jewish leaders felt when He used such brilliant reasoning against them?

Wesker1982

01-12-2011, 10:21 AM

JVParkour

01-12-2011, 10:22 AM

Here is a verse that I really like, I think it can be easily related to 'entangling alliances'.

Proverbs 11:15- "He who puts up security for another will surely suffer, but whoever refuses to strike hands in pledge is safe." (NIV)

Here it is in the ESV as well: "Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer harm, but he who hates striking hands in pledge is secure."

erowe1

01-12-2011, 10:36 AM

Jesus was referring to the tax collectors and the prostitutes because the Jewish leaders had condemned them; not Jesus. The tax collectors and the prostitutes accepted what Jesus was saying, while the Jewish leaders refused to accept Him, so he was throwing it in their faces how the tax collectors and prostitutes would be rewarded before the Jewish leaders would. The Jewish leaders sinned against Holy Spirit. They witnessed Jesus performing miracles and yet refused to accept Him. Can you imagine the anger the Jewish leaders felt when He used such brilliant reasoning against them?

But Jesus accepted them because they repented (i.e. stopped being tax collectors and prostitutes). The fault of his religious opponents was not that they weren't tax collectors and prostitutes, but that, despite their less overtly sinful lifestyles, they failed to repent of those sins that they did commit and believe in him as those tax collectors and prostitutes had done, hence his final words in that quote.

outspoken

01-12-2011, 10:44 AM

What if you took it even a step further and sought to define libertarianism through all God, i.e. Supreme Consciousness, not just that found in the Bible?

outspoken

01-12-2011, 10:51 AM

Any one here read Myth of A Christian Nation or the sequel Myth of a Christian Religion by Greg Boyd???

I think you will find this enlightening and provide such answers.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 10:51 AM

What if you took it even a step further and sought to define libertarianism through all God, i.e. Supreme Consciousness, not just that found in the Bible?

If you mean natural law, as in the idea of moral standards that people can know without the Bible, then I'm all for that. And I think the idea of natural law is well supported in the Bible.

If you mean the idea that the god of the Bible is divine but not the unique one true god, then that would be problematic, since the Bible asserts that he is the only god there is and that all other gods are false. So either the god of the Bible is the only god, or he does not exist.

YumYum

01-12-2011, 11:22 AM

So either the god of the Bible is the only god, or he does not exist.

Or better yet, the majority of professed believers don't know Him.

John 8:19 (New International Version)

19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

Sola_Fide

01-12-2011, 01:50 PM

Or better yet, the majority of professed believers don't know Him.

John 8:19 (New International Version)

19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

1. Jesus said that to the Jews, not "professed believers".

2. Your assertion in previous posts that earthly governments are the realm of Satan is wrong. ALL authority in Heaven and EARTH has been given to the Son:

Then Jesus came to them and said,"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

There is no realm of heaven or earth that the Lord is not sovereign over. Jesus even laid down His life of His own accord, to accomplish the will of the Father. He told Pilate that Pilate could do NOTHING without the soveriegn plan of God.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 01:54 PM

ALL authority in Heaven and EARTH has been given to the Son
That includes Satan.

jmdrake

01-12-2011, 02:03 PM

jmdrake

01-12-2011, 02:06 PM

But the point is, He did pay the temple tax. As followers of Jesus, we are focused on G-d's kingdom. Worldly governments are temporary, and G-d allows them to exist to fulfill His purpose. If Satan's governments need taxes which allows us to preach, let them have their tax. In fact, I believe the churches should pay taxes, so that they can guarantee their right to freedom of worship. Nothing in Satan's system is free. Let Satan have his taxes and his governments. This is all going to go down, anyway. We look to G-d's kingdom; the same Kingdom that Jesus preached about.

You know, you're on to something here. Let's look again at what Jesus said.

They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

People don't want to pay Caesar's taxes? They shouldn't use Caesar's fiat money. Jesus gave Christians the key to escape their own prison. But too many would rather argue the see the point being made.

stuntman stoll

01-12-2011, 02:07 PM

great topic. I combined what I thought were the good points and added some of my own to come up with the following:

The first societies were Stateless. Got punished sin and crime.
(Then fast forward a few thousand years)
After escaping Egypt and settling Israel, the Israelites had a Stateless society. They had judges who determined punishments for crime and some Jewish sins.
In less than 100 years, the Israelites wanted to have a government with a king like their neighboring societies. God warned against that saying that by having an earthly ruler, they would be rejecting God. God also said that they would be subject to taxation, conscription, and eminent domain; clearly implying that these are bad things.
I Samuel 8:7 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.
8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 8:11 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. 8:12 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.
8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 8:18 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.
8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 8:20 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.

New Testemant:

Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant." (Mat 21:24-26)
Not so in the State’s ruling class, which is invariably populated with busybody power mongers.

Matthew 19:16-22
And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
What is important here is not the lesson of tithing and giving to the poor, but the lack of coercion. Jesus didn’t force the young man to give to the poor. In response to this meeting, the young man simply walked away. Jesus didn’t campaign, either here or anywhere else, for the State to be involved in charity.

Mark 14:3 While he [Jesus] was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.
6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.
Some people with Jesus wanted to take the woman’s property “for the greater good of the people.” Jesus rebuked them.

Matthew 22:15-22
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
In avoiding the trap, Jesus side stepped the question and neither addressed the morality of taxation or the morality of tax protest. He instead gave vague support for property rights. Also, in their question, the Pharisee’s disciples and Herodians (the local Jewish rulers under the occupying Romans) say that Jesus does not care who people are or what title they have i.e. no double standard i.e. Jesus views the theft, coercion, and violence of a ruler the same as a peasant.

Jesus seems to have generally followed all of the rules of the State that didn’t conflict with his beliefs. However, nothing he did or said gave validity to their authority. Even when standing before the Jewish priests and the occupying Roman rulers, he mocked their authority by calling himself the king of the Jews.

Temple tax
Mathew 17:24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”
25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”
26 “From others,” Peter answered.
“Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
Jesus didn’t hold in high regard the tax systems. “Tax collector” was almost a synonym for sinner (Matthew 5:46; 9:10-11; 11:19; 21:31-32). He probably payed the taxes because it is not morally wrong to pay taxes, just like it isn’t morally wrong for you to give a robber your money at gun point, and “Romans 12:18 as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone”.

Mathew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
While this verse and its context explicitly identifies money as a master, it could also apply to the State being that nothing fits the qualities of a master better than the State.

Ephesians 2:14 For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites had the status as God’s favored people and favored nation. For them, war was justified in certain cases. That ended with the beginning of Christianity. God no longer sees the World in terms of ethnicities and nations. In the New Testament, there is no justification for war (the main purpose of having a State). Further than that, violence of any kind is disapproved of for Christians, even in response to a crime (Mathew 5:39 turn the other cheek, etc.).

MelissaCato

01-12-2011, 02:07 PM

Which type of Christianity? Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Protestant? Different Christian groups have understood liberty very differently.

Protestant. ;o)

oyarde

01-12-2011, 02:16 PM

Second Corinthians 3 : 17 , Second Thessolonians 3 : 10 .

Grubb556

01-12-2011, 02:24 PM

Not exactly libertarianism but sorta relates to our government's spending habits.

"Just as the rich rule the poor, so the borrower is servant to the lender"
Proverbs 22:7

guitarlifter

01-12-2011, 02:26 PM

Sola_Fide

01-12-2011, 02:29 PM

Not exactly libertarianism but sorta relates to our government's spending habits.

"Just as the rich rule the poor, so the borrower is servant to the lender"
Proverbs 22:7

That's definitely libertarian!

Debt is discouraged in Scripture...its compared to slavery.

Todd

01-12-2011, 02:32 PM

erowe1

01-12-2011, 02:35 PM

Alot of Libertarians won't like this, but C.S. Lewis explained quite well in "Mere Christianity" that a truly Christian society would resemble a socialist one. However, I will point out it would be more based on mutual desire to please guide as a voluntary one than a society where coercion was used to force it upon citizens. Food for thought.

Lewis actually wrote quite a bit about the state. His views were much more anti-state than you imply.

Here's a nice article about Lewis's views by David Theroux of the excellent think tank, the Independent Institute.
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/CS-Lewis-on-Mere-Liberty-and-the-Evils-of-Statism.html

oyarde

01-12-2011, 02:46 PM

That One Samuel 8 is good .

Todd

01-12-2011, 03:09 PM

Lewis actually wrote quite a bit about the state. His views were much more anti-state than you imply.

Here's a nice article about Lewis's views by David Theroux of the excellent think tank, the Independent Institute.
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/CS-Lewis-on-Mere-Liberty-and-the-Evils-of-Statism.html

Actually...that was my point..that he was much more anti state....as implied when I said his society would be voluntary. I don't think I implied he was statist. Just that society would much more resemble people sharing by each according to it's needs than a free market in his view. I'll check out the article you posted. I've been reading more Lewis these days.

Polskash

01-12-2011, 03:13 PM

I've posted this in another thread, but I'll repost again in case anyone hasn't read it. These threads seem to pop up very often.

Repost from a Facebook Note of mine:

Most theologically conservative Christians are members of a voting bloc known as the religious right who votes almost exclusively Republican. Ideologically, the great majority of these people are neoconservatives. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy characterized by fervent nationalism, warmongering, lukewarm opposition to the welfare state, expansion of the police state in the name of security, and more often than not, state-enforcement of “conservative” values. Unbeknownst to most die-hard Republicans, neoconservatism has its intellectual roots in Trotskyism, a form of Marxism. This explains why government expands rapidly while under Republican control even though Republicans are said to be the party of small government. At its core, Marxism is a Godless worldview which ultimately renders neoconservatism incompatible with Christianity as a political philosophy. It is my contention that libertarianism is the only political philosophy consistent with the basic principles spelled out in the Bible. For this reason, I believe every Christian ought to be a libertarian (but not necessarily a Libertarian, a member of the Libertarian Party). Therefore, I have decided to write a series explaining why I believe this is the case and what the policy implications are. The topics will appear in this order (tentative):

1. Overview of Libertarianism
2. Separation of the Law
3. Principle of Self-Ownership
4. Homestead Principle
5. Non-Aggression Principle
6. Welfare
7. Vice Laws
8. Foreign Policy
9. Gay Marriage
10. Abortion
11. Evolution
12. On the Nature of the State
13. What About Romans 13?

Overview of Libertarianism

Before starting this series, I think an overview of libertarianism is in order. A popular description of libertarianism is “conservative fiscally, liberal socially”. The problem with this simplistic description is that it meshes political and economic philosophy with personal attitudes toward social mores and conventions when the two are really independent spheres of thought. This often leads conservatives to erroneously conflate libertarianism with libertinism. Libertinism is a lifestyle that rejects conventional morality that is often religious in origin. Some libertarians are libertine, others are very conservative culturally. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates the maximization of individual liberty and a minimization of the state. It is not an all-inclusive worldview.

There are three foundational principles of libertarianism from which everything else follows. The first is the principle of self-ownership, or the absolute property right in your own physical person. The second is the homestead principle which states that one can legitimately acquire an unused natural thing by using it or making something out of it. From these two principles we can deduce a third known as the non-aggression principle which states that it is morally illegitimate to initiate (or threaten) force against another individual or his property.

I will begin with the Bible, and show why each of these follows from the Scriptures. Once these are established, I will delve into specific topics from the libertarian perspective. Since the policy prescriptions logically follow from the aforementioned libertarian principles which themselves follow from the Bible, then they must be morally true. I will buttress the libertarian perspective with direct support from the Bible for good measure anyway. All Scriptures come from the New International Version.

Separation of the Law

When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment in the Law was, he answered “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40) What Jesus essentially did here was to divide the Law into two areas. The first governs the relationship between man and God and the second between man and his fellow man.

Take special note of the phrase “hang on these two commandments”. This suggests that all other laws and moral teachings of the prophets can ultimately be reduced to one of these two commandments. My plan is to show that the Bible clearly teaches Christians to approach these two domains of law in drastically different ways. Namely, that only persuasion should be used to promote adherence to loving the Lord but force can be used to ensure that you do not harm your neighbor. Only God may punish infractions of the first law, while man is allowed to enforce infractions of the second. If you take a look at the 10 Commandments, you will see that the 6th, 8th, and 9th Commandments fall into the latter category while the rest fall into the former.

The separation is necessary in order to allow people the freedom to accept or reject God. Consider Revelation 3:20, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me”. It is telling that God chose this metaphor to teach that Christianity is voluntary. Knocking on someone’s door is a universal sign of respect for another’s property rights. If accepting Jesus is the best thing an individual can do for himself yet he is given the option not to, what justification can a human give for forcing another human into something obviously less beneficial? Furthermore, whereas God’s voluntary offer is made from a position of omniscience, the human’s coercion is committed in fallibility. The neoconservative lust for forcing values onto others through the state is completely unwarranted.

Libertarianism is left to fill the void when governing relations amongst fellow men as a political theory. We will see that the foundational principles of libertarianism follow directly from the Bible so as to establish their moral legitimacy. We will be left with a worldview ultimately predicated on the Bible with two different paths of moral and intellectual thought leading out. One deals with the non-violent efforts to promote Christianity and its associated lifestyle and the other deals with using worldly authorities to resolve disputes and protect property rights.

Principle of Self-Ownership

Starting with the Bible, we know that God owns everyone and everything by virtue of being the Creator, “The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Pslam 24:1). The Bible likens your body to a temple and asks that you honor God with it, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (Corinthians 6:19-20). God bought your body with Christ’s blood, so he owns it and asks that you glorify him with it. This commandment governs your relationship with God, not your fellow man.

Recall that the principle of self-ownership is defined as an absolute property right in your own person. Since we are prohibited from murdering (Exodus 20:13) and harming others, we can also conclude that we have the highest claim of ownership over our own bodies aside from God for the purposes of resolving disputes and ensuring justice. You can view this relationship as being similar to the one between a landlord and tenant. The landlord is the ultimate owner of the property and can step in at anytime and stake his claim over it. The tenant leases the property and assumes responsibility and exercises authority over it in the mean time. The tenant is also required to obey the rules the landlord has set for the property. We are in effect temporary tenants of our physical bodies.

The logical alternatives to self-ownership are one human owning another or every human owning a piece of every other human. The first is slavery. If the second is true, then can two people coerce a third by claiming they have a fractionally higher claim to his body than he does? If more than half the population agrees to this then there can be no higher claim over that human in the entire world. Also, how would restitution get carried out in the event that the individual is harmed? Would everyone in the world be given his fraction of the restitution? Unsurprisingly, the Bible doesn’t lend any support to such a system of ownership. The alternatives to self-ownership are indeed absurd.
Some Christians object to self-ownership on the grounds that it is a pagan concept logically entailing that everyone is free to do whatever they want with themselves. They fail to realize that a political theory must apply to Christians and non-Christians alike because conflicts between Christians and non-Christians over their bodies will inevitably occur. Self-ownership to a secular libertarian really does mean that he thinks it is ok for him to do whatever he wants to himself. For a Christian, self-ownership carries the extra requirement to glorify god with your body. This extra requirement does not in any way conflict with the separation of the Law. Self-ownership provides a coherent system of property assignment of people’s bodies in order to make dispute resolution of bodily trespasses universally possible.

Homestead Principle

The second foundational principle is the homestead principle. This principle states that one can legitimately acquire an unused natural thing by using it or making something out of it. For example, if there is a plot of unused land, someone could acquire it by fencing it in and doing something productive with it like farming it. There must be some system of original property assignment because at one time, there were vast amounts of land that had no owner aside from God who had provided it as a gift to man. God gave man dominion over the earth, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” (Genesis 1:26).

Suppose that the homestead principle is incorrect. This implies, then, that all the land was originally owned. By whom though? God is the original owner (Exodus 9:29, Psalm 24:1, I Corinthians 10:26, Leviticus 25:23) but he gave man permission to fill and dominate it. Does every human have a claim to every piece of land? This cannot be true because God had Joshua apportion land to certain tribes (Joshua 13:7) and people in one tribe had no claim to land given to another. Furthermore, God viewed generational inheritance of land very favorably (Deuteronomy 19:14), which forbids property taxes by the state which is not only a false claim of original ownership of land by the state, but also an attempt to dispossess a family of their land. Therefore, the state is not a communal owner of land either.

When Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, they had this instruction from God, “…Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Genesis 1:28). Homesteading new land was their Godly mandate and it remains the natural system of original property appropriation.

Non-Aggression Principle

Since the Bible implies the existence of private property with the commandment not to steal and that un-owned property can be homesteaded, it follows then that the only other means of morally acquiring external property apart from your body is through a voluntary exchange with another individual. Voluntary exchanges include market transactions, gifts, and inheritance via wills. If we physically own ourselves, any form of assault on our physical person is morally wrong. From a legalistic standpoint, it is nearly identical to someone destroying your external property such as your car.

We can generalize these two conclusions and say that coercion, where coercion is the initiation (or threat) of force against another person or property, is morally wrong. Thus, we have the non-aggression principle. An immediately corollary is that individuals cannot delegate a right that they themselves do not have. I can delegate the right to my personal defense because I already have a right to self-defense. For example, it is perfectly legitimate for me to hire a body guard or contract a security firm to protect my home. What I cannot do is delegate the right to take someone else’s money because I don’t have that right. If this were legitimate, then it would necessarily infringe on the rights of another individual, a violation of the non-aggression principle and thus be a self-refuting philosophy of rights.

What about the government though? It does not follow that because people desire security and dispute resolution that there must be a monopoly on the provision of those services. To claim otherwise is simply a non-sequitur. As already mentioned, every property owner already has a right to protect his own property which means he has the right to delegate that right to another party. This other party has no more right to initiate force than the property owner does. As for dispute resolution, any arbiter that the disagreeing parties agree to use is a legitimate arbiter. There is no moral basis for forcing the disagreeing parties to use any particular arbiter. The purpose of any governing authority is to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4), whether it is the state or a private organization.

As you can see, the non-aggression principle has enormous implications for basically all public policy issues. We’ll look at each one from the libertarian Christian perspective.

Welfare

Taxes are an involuntary transfer of property because refusing to pay them will result in the state initiating force against you. Christ never answered the yes or no question on whether or not a Christian should pay taxes. He gave an ingeniously ambiguous statement to avoid conflict that answering in the affirmative or negative would have brought on him. When Christ was approached by the rich man who wanted to know how to go to Heaven, Jesus responded by saying “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"(Matthew 19:21). The rich man walked away disappointed because he enjoyed his riches. Notice that Christ gave the man the choice to give or not give to the poor.

Like any other government intervention, welfare has unintended consequences that only serve to create more problems. One of these is that the net taxpayer begins to harbor feelings of contempt towards the net tax receiver. He wonders why he should be charitable through his church or other voluntary organization when the government is already taking his money to fund handouts to others. On the flipside, the welfare recipient develops a dependency and sense of entitlement, also immoral. The Bible clearly states that “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat’” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Since humans are not entitled to each other food, the most basic necessity of all, then it follows that they are not entitled to anything at all. This includes services such as health care which require the labor of a real person along with medical equipment.

The notion that people have a right to the scarce resource of another is known as a positive right which is totally incompatible with the Bible. When we say that someone has a right to something, what we mean is that it is ok to use proportional force to see that the right is respected. If a crazed man approaches me with a hatchet, it is ok for me to use force to ensure that my property right in my person is not violated. This is a negative right because it requires inaction on the part of the crazed man to see that my property rights are not violated. Now let’s say that someone has a right to healthcare. What this means is that if he is sick, and a doctor is around, it is ok for him to use force against the doctor to protect his right to healthcare because the doctor has a positive obligation to see that his healthcare needs are met. Since no one would go for this, the state decides that the doctor should be compensated. By whom though? The answer of course is everyone else through taxes. Why stop with healthcare though? How about housing, clothing, or transportation? The fundamental problem with positive rights is that it logically reduces to claim that anyone is entitled to use force against anyone else (usually indirectly through the state) to secure his property or service. We can conclude then that the only morally legitimate aid to the poor is voluntary charity.

Vice Laws

All laws against vices are morally illegitimate. These include laws dealing with heathens, prostitutes, drunks, adulterers, gays, lazy people, greedy people, et al. Since vices do not involve the property rights of others, they are not real crimes because they lack a victim whose rights have been violated. For example, if I steal your car, it’s clear who the victim is. Who is the victim if I get caught gambling one Saturday afternoon? Nobody’s property was stolen because I was using my own money nor have I physically hurt anyone. The Bible also forbids being a busybody (Proverbs 20:3, 2 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Peter 4:15) which is exactly what a statist “moral crusader” is. It simply isn’t anyone’s business what two adults do in a bedroom or how an individual spends his money. Initiating force against someone who has committed a vice is a violation of the non-aggression principle and is immoral.

Rather than being crimes, vices are personal spiritual and health matters that should be dealt with by families, churches, and doctors. Jesus dealt with these types of people during his ministry and never once advocated initiating force against them. He instead asked them to cease their behavior and make their peace with God. Christians would be wise to follow his example considering that they themselves are far from perfect.

Foreign Policy

One source of misunderstanding on this issue is caused by people failing to reject collectivism. For example, suppose a Christian thinks someone somewhere in the world poses a threat to his safety. Given the choice, he would almost always choose to not take that individual’s life directly himself because the justification is obviously not there. He instead absolves himself by passing on the dirty deed to a member in the military. More often than you think, the guy in the military knows that individual isn’t a threat yet kills him anyway. He absolves himself by claiming he was killing for the government and just following orders so it’s not murder. To tie this back to libertarian theory, a group of people doesn’t possess any more rights than any single individual because a group of people is really just a collection of individuals that have been arbitrarily grouped according to some criteria. Therefore, a group is subject to the non-aggression principle because all of its individual members are. Since the state is really just a group of people, it too must abide by the non-aggression principle. Asking someone else to murder on your behalf makes you equally guilty of murder. Christians should not ask agents of the state, such as the individuals in the military, to kill foreigners on their behalf. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you personally have not studied the threat, for months or years if necessary, so that you can in good conscience state that the threat is just as real and imminent as a burglar in your home with a gun, then you are guilty of murder. Given the number of Americans who can’t find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map, I think I’ve made my case.

During WWI, Randolph Bourne astutely observed that “war is the health of the state”. War always results in an expansion of state power under the guise of some nationalistic collective effort to emerge victorious. Common expansions of power include wiretapping, detention, conscription, central economic planning, increased government spending, warrantless searches, and suspension of free speech to name a few. Christians are unwittingly sowing the seeds of their own destruction because they are empowering the very state that will mercilessly persecute them down the road. Jesus gave a direct warning as to who the enemy will be, "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:16-18). If American Christians think this is ludicrous, perhaps they should look across the Atlantic at a secularized Europe where Christians are imprisoned for quoting Biblical condemnations of homosexual acts because it is considered “hate speech”. Given the increasing secularization of America, it won’t be long before we’re there.

Finally, on to the neoconservative justification for warmongering that so many Christians have openly embraced. Neoconservatives attempt to justify their warmongering by claiming they are doing good by “spreading democracy”. In reality, it’s heavily disguised Satanic evangelism. God’s Word has been replaced by a human idea for a form of government. Politicians, academics, and media personalities have replaced pastors and priests. God’s field servants are the soldiers of an evil government. The Holy Spirit has been replaced by a gun. Churches have been replaced by military bases. Conversion is brought about by fear rather than love. Failure to convert is punished by man rather than by God.

Indeed, it is truly a sign of the times that an entry on foreign policy is needed in this series. I’ll end with the clearest verse in the entire Bible on this matter, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9).

Gay Marriage

The libertarian solution to this problem is to simply eliminate government involvement in marriage altogether. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines a license as “permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful”. The question then becomes, how did a government bureaucrat become a competent authority on deciding who can get married? This is idolatrous to its core because it substitutes the state for God. A marriage becomes not a contract between the husband, wife, and God, but one between the husband, wife, and the state.

Let’s go back several thousand years to a time before megalomaniacal politicians. Adam and Eve were married by God and all that was required was that it was done in the presence of God (Genesis 2:24). It is an institution created and ordained by God and precedes any worldly government. Since the beginning of time, fathers have arranged marriages (Genesis 24:1-4, Genesis 28:1-2), including Adam’s who is the son of God (Luke 3:38). The Scriptures state that the father of the bride is to give her hand in marriage (Deuteronomy 22:16; Exodus 22:17), but familial approval is not needed (Genesis 28:6-9). By all accounts, marriage is a family institution.

If the best Christians can do is to look to state coercion to prevent moral decay, in violation of the non-aggression principle, then the battle is already over and they have lost. Homosexuality is a sin of the heart and not a crime with victims who deserve restitution. Marriage was and always will be a God-ordained union between one man and one woman and nobody can change that. Just because Rick and Bob get together and call their relationship a marriage doesn’t make it so, even if the state says it is. Instead, Christians should peacefully teach people why it isn’t a marriage rather than resort to indirect violence through the state.

Abortion

The Bible is clear that the unborn are human (Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:41-44). Therefore, from a purely Biblical perspective, we know that abortion is morally wrong. However, a great number of libertarians are pro-abortion, usually on the grounds that the woman is a self-owner and therefore anything residing in her is on her property. She is free, then, to remove the unwanted baby. Many Christians are immediately turned away on this issue because they perceive libertarianism as being incompatible with Christianity. While I agree that she is a self-owner, I do not agree that she can remove the baby.

Suppose you invite your friend onto your boat that is docked. While your friend is on your boat, your boat undocks because of your inept rope work. Eventually, you find yourself lost at sea, but you have plenty of provisions for yourself and your friend to subsist on while awaiting rescue. You are very confident that your boat will be discovered within several months at most. Now let’s say you no longer want your friend on your boat perhaps because you two got into an argument or you just simply have grown tired of him. Is it ok for you to toss him off the boat so that he will surely die? The answer is of course no. It is true that you own your boat but you do not own your friend. When your friend agreed to board your boat, he was not agreeing to being thrown off to his death some time later because of your foolishness. Had he known you were about to put him in a potentially dangerous situation and that you were not willing to see through a crisis to the finish with him, then he would never have agreed to board your boat. For the same reason, a woman cannot dump the baby from her body to sure death.

This analogy is of course imperfect. It’s impossible to create a realistic analogy of conception, pregnancy, and birth because conception is unique in that it is the only way a human can spontaneously come into existence. Another difference is that the unborn baby is incapable of giving consent unlike the friend in the above scenario. However, it doesn’t follow that it is ok to abort the baby. People who are incapable of giving consent because they are unconscious, mentally retarded, or in a vegetative state do not automatically lose their rights. Instead, those who own the custodial rights make the decisions on their behalf. Finally, this analogy does not take into account the fact that most abortions involve deliberately killing the fetus before expelling it from the womb. Bludgeoning your friend to death and tossing him overboard would clearly be unconscionable.

More generally, when an individual is placed into a potentially dangerous predicament as a consequence of another person’s actions, there exists an obligation to see that the victim has his bodily integrity protected. This obligation is not to be confused with a positive obligation resulting from a governmental decree of a positive right. Clearly, a doctor minding his own business and a random sick stranger is not analogous to the above scenario. Rather, this obligation stems from the gray area between self-defense and restitution. In the course of a given transgression, the window for self-defense closes and the one for restitution opens. This is in accordance with the Bible, where a burglar at night whose intentions are not clear may be killed, but using force against him the next day when there is light is considered vengeance (Exodus 22:2-3). On the one hand, the victim can use proportional force to protect himself because the event is ongoing. On the other hand, the responsible individual can begin the process of restitution by ensuring that the victim is not physically hurt.

Theoretical arguments aside, I think the best answer on this issue comes from looking at the big picture. First, Christians must acknowledge that widespread acceptance of abortion is a direct consequence of secularization. Therefore, any solution to abortion requires an abatement of secularization. The government is not an evangelizer. Second, when 150 million Americans think abortion is a-ok, getting government coercion on your side isn’t going to magically make abortion disappear. Third, abortion is used as a tool to control the masses, especially the religious right. Republicans harness “value voters” by dangling a federal abortion ban carrot in exchange for federal warmongering, welfarism, police statism, and other expansions of the federal leviathan. Christians looking at this issue on purely moral grounds should avoid entangling themselves in the political baggage with its associated moral hazards. Fourth, there are tremendous opportunities to reduce the number of abortions by working through churches and pro-life organizations. Voluntary goodwill goes a lot further in changing a pregnant woman’s mind than a shallow, impersonal threat through the government.

In conclusion, the mother has an obligation to see her pregnancy through to the finish. Once the baby is born, the mother can publicly relinquish her custodial rights to the child, allowing another individual to homestead those rights and provide for the baby. As long as the mother does not abandon the baby in a dangerous situation like in a dumpster, then from a legalistic standpoint, she hasn’t done anything wrong. As for her Godly imperative to be a loving mother (Proverbs 31:25-30), she will have to answer to God.

Polskash

01-12-2011, 03:13 PM

Evolution

Libertarianism is only a political philosophy and not a worldview. It says nothing on the origin of man, period. The reason I have decided to include the topic in this series is because of the ongoing controversy about teaching non-evolutionary origins in public school classrooms. Funny enough, this time Christians find themselves at the end of the government’s sword, paradoxically, the very same government they believe can create Godly people through force. The solution to the problem is to abolish public education and allow parents to decide how their children will be educated.

The Nature of the State

With our Biblical political theory laid out, I feel most Christians could benefit greatly from a purely Biblical analysis and unraveling of the nature of the state. We find our first clue in 1 Samuel 8 where we learn that coercive earthly governments arise out of rebellion against God. The nation of Israel up until that point was under Mosaic Law with no government. Dispute resolution was carried out according to the God’s Law by private parties. The most similar modern theory to this system is known as anarcho-capitalism. People eventually rejected this system, citing unfair judges, but their real motivation was to be like the other nations and have a king. According to the Scripture, they were actually committing idolatry because they were replacing God with another god. God then warns them of the terrible evil that will follow, but they insist and God delivers what they want- one brutal regime after another. One key thing to take away from this historical lesson is that God gives people the government they want but doesn’t necessarily endorse it. He ultimately appoints all rulers (Romans 13:1), but we’ll soon learn that Satan himself can do so as well.

In Luke 4:5-7, Satan tempts Jesus with power over all the earthly governments but only if he would worship him. We know the offer was good because Christ was genuinely tempted. Had the offer been hollow, Christ would have called him out on his lie like he did to others throughout his ministry. The Book of Revelation teaches of an Antichrist who will lead a one-world government in the End Times. Satan supplies this man with the greatest thing he can give, coercive power over the entire world. Indeed, Jesus, no less than three times, calls Satan the prince of this world (John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11).

To recap: we have earthly governments born out of rebellion against God whose control of is granted by Satan who is the ruler of this world. This power will ultimately manifest itself in the End Times under a one-world government lead by the Antichrist who will commit unspeakable acts of evil. There is but one conclusion to reach. The earthly governments are, without a doubt, Satanic to their core. At this point, in order to understand the nature of the state, one simply has to understand the nature of Satan. Fortunately for us, God doesn’t expect us to innately know the nature of an invisible and powerful fallen angel so he clues us in. Satan was created as the highest ranking angel (Ezekiel 28:12-15) whose pride and arrogance led to his fall (Isaiah 14:13-14). He is a murderer and liar (John 8:44), accuser (Revelation 12:10), and our adversary (1 Peter 5:8). Perhaps it would be wise to follow the example of Gideon, who when offered power during the time of the Judges, simply said, "I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The LORD will rule over you" (Judges 8:23).

In light of all this, I’ve put together seven guidelines for how I feel Christians should approach matters of government:

1. Whenever the government makes any claim, assume it is entirely a lie until you or someone you trust has independently verified which parts, if any, are true.
2. Understand that governments, because of their nature, overwhelmingly attract the worst of people.
3. Just as Satan deceives you into believing he has your best interests at heart, so does the government while in reality they are really only looking out for themselves (John 11:47-48).
4. Blind service to, confidence of, hope in, and trust in government to meet your needs is foolish and arguably idolatrous (Jeremiah 17:5-8, Matthew 4:10, Psalms 118:8-9, Psalms 146:3).
5. Understand that governments seek to become the sole center of authority which necessarily requires Godly institutions like the church and family to be destroyed.
6. Remember that obedience to God is driven by love, whereas obedience to the state is driven by fear.
7. The Bible is more concerned with the function of governments rather than their forms so do not idolize any particular form of government.

What About Romans 13?

Romans 13 is often cited to give blanket justification for any government policy. Our Satanic government is licking its chops and is not going to pass up on the opportunity. The Department of Homeland Security intends to use clergy to preach unequivocal submission to the governing authorities in the event martial law is declared. Their silver bullet is Romans 13. I will reprint the relevant passages here for convenience:

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1-7)

Sadly, many Christians have fallen victim to terrible evil because of an erroneous understanding of a mere seven verses. One indispensible strategy for interpreting scripture is to use a more specific verse to impose limitations on a more general one. This can be done because the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God so it does not contradict itself. There are two specific verses found elsewhere which will be useful in helping us understand the above. They are Acts 5:29, “Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men” and Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money”.

The first verse states we are to submit to the governing authorities. Submission is a voluntary act where one ceases resistance to another’s will. Wives are also given the same command to submit to their husbands in order to avoid power struggles within the home (Ephesians 5:22-23). Submission is not obedience as described in Acts 5:29 where one believes the authority in question is authoritative. It is also not service as described in Matthew 6:24 because if you love God, then you cannot love the government too. Furthermore, we know the earthly governments are Satanic so God would contradict himself by asking us to serve and obey Satan. Verse two clarifies the authorities in question in verse one.
Verses three and four revolve entirely around the good vs. evil dichotomy. What is good and what is evil? This series has already expounded a political theory based on what is good according to the Bible. Today’s government bears no resemblance to a government based on libertarian theory. Verse four is the only verse in the entire Bible that explicitly assigns a function to a legitimate government. According to the Bible, the only thing governments should do is punish wrongdoers, period. Clearly though, our government does much more than this. Verse five gives a reason for why we should submit to a governing authority. God does not want Christians who commit crimes and subsequently resist giving the victim his due with a justification like “God will ultimately hold me accountable so there is no point for holding me accountable in this world”.

Verses six and seven discuss material and immaterial support for governing authorities. All governments today are incompatible with libertarian theory and are not worthy of respect or honor. All of them are also supported by taxes. However, this doesn’t have to be the case. A libertarian government is either strictly minarchist, in which case the government is so small it wouldn’t even need to be supported by taxes, or it is anarchist in which case private parties provide security and dispute resolution. Private parties can only generate revenue through voluntary exchange.

erowe1

01-12-2011, 03:22 PM

Actually...that was my point..that he was much more anti state....as implied when I said his society would be voluntary. I don't think I implied he was statist. Just that society would much more resemble people sharing by each according to it's needs than a free market in his view. I'll check out the article you posted. I've been reading more Lewis these days.

Gotcha. I missed that point.

1000-points-of-fright

01-12-2011, 04:10 PM

if people can't make choices and choose God then we're no different than angels

Sorry to derail this thread, but if Angels cannot make choices (no free will) then how does one explain Lucifer?

outspoken

01-12-2011, 04:59 PM

We must recognize that the Bible is inspired by God, the most inspired text imo. It is not the absolute word in God which is why there are thousands of versions of it. I suggest reading Misquoting Jesus for greater appreciation if you find this hard to accept. The new testament itself is not even written by Jesus, but rather, disciples decades later attempting to recollect his life and teachings. God is at essence love as stated in the Bible. We who called ourselves Christians are not even called to worship Christ but follow Christ. When we get caught up in worship often it converts people's hearts from love to contempt. And we do this by leading a life centered by love. My Christian faith of which I am a converted agnostic bordering on atheist is much aligned with CS Lewis' faith. I value all writings and teachings that seek greater understanding of love and the suffering that is part of human nature when we are not aware of our own sinful nature. I think all great religions point to this truth, some more than others. Christianity when you compare it to others is the most conscious imo but it is imperative that we respect that every person's starting point is not that of a believer. In fact, I think we are called to question our faith boldly even as believers rather than follow as blind sheep. Most non-believers as well as borderline believers of which many younger people today are are repulsed by the thoughts, words, and actions of the religous folk. Much of that is because the way in which Jesus is passed down is through fear of not going to heaven and condemnation of our fellow man. I think it would be beneficial for all if our starting point was that of love rather than slamming people with scripture. It is rather rediculous for any book to justify itself the Truth because 'it says so'... and in doing so you alienate people who are perhaps seeking greater understand of life and God. Who knows...perhaps that might even be something that the early Christian writers/scribes put in there as a means of controlling their own sheep. That is how the ego works when you are aware the truth of human nature. Thus, I will leave you with this rather eloquent quote from not the messiah, but the one who when asked said he was not the messiah but simply awakened....

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

~Buddha

Lucille

01-12-2011, 05:32 PM

I know you didn't ask, but, for our Jewish friends: If a Libertarian Gave a Sermon for Passover (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/03/if_a_libertaria.html)

As we approach Passover in 2010, many people are unemployed. But in a free society, government does not create jobs.

Pharaoh created jobs for us. Moses led us away from those jobs. Even though those jobs helped to complete public infrastructure. Even though they were green jobs, where we used our muscles and our backs instead of fossil fuels.

Moses could have been part of the ruling class in Egypt. He chose freedom instead. Those of us who followed Moses also chose freedom. Freedom brings risks. But we preferred the risks of freedom to the security of bondage.

Do not confuse government with G-d. Government cannot miraculously provide us with manna--or health care. When we look at government, we should not see G-d. We should see Pharaoh. Government-worship is Pharaoh-worship.

Passover is known as the festival of freedom. To live in the Jerusalem of a free society, we have to leave the Egypt of the reach of government.

I Samuel 8 10-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8&version=KJV) (mentioned in the comments):

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king.
11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.
12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
14 He will take the best of youry fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.a
15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.
17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day."

Captain Shays

01-12-2011, 05:40 PM

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children and his children's children. Proverbs (don't remember which chapter and verse).

oyarde

01-12-2011, 05:50 PM

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children and his children's children. Proverbs (don't remember which chapter and verse).

Communists cannot do that !!

osan

01-12-2011, 05:51 PM

Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage
Galatians 5:1

What is the context? As offered, it could mean anything.

oyarde

01-12-2011, 05:52 PM

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children and his children's children. Proverbs (don't remember which chapter and verse).

Proverbs 13 : 22

guitarlifter

01-12-2011, 05:53 PM

guitarlifter

02-01-2011, 04:19 PM

I found a set of verses today that really hit me.

1 Corinthians 6:1-11 (New International Version, ©2010)

1 Corinthians 6
Lawsuits Among Believers
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

No matter the possible worldly good a law may bring, any sin or ungodly means that you have to commit or use in order to do it signifies one's own defeat failure to uphold Christ's teachings. Just as 2 Corinthians 10:4 says, "the weapons we fight with are not of this world. On the contrary, they have the divine power to demolish strongholds." Paul tells us how we should deal with those who sin. "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." - Galatians 6:1-2 I swear to all of you that, within the next decade, when I establish a stable living (I'm in college right now), I will write a book on the theological view on politics as they should be according to Christ's word, and I will post news of it on here. We'll have it go viral, and we'll spread the truth. :)

TIMB0B

04-08-2011, 09:40 AM

This power will ultimately manifest itself in the End Times under a one-world government lead by the Antichrist who will commit unspeakable acts of evil. Are you saying this power has never manifested itself in the history of the world? Are you saying that there has never been unspeakable acts of evil committed before? You seem to have fallen for the same jargon as the neo-cons in their belief of dispensational theory.

And who is this antichrist (which is only mentioned 4 times in the Bible)? John tells us...

1 John 2:18
[ Warnings Against Denying the Son ] Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

To put it in lay terms, any and ALL people that reject Christ in any way, shape, or form, is antichrist. It is plural. Not one man at the "end times."

TER

04-08-2011, 10:04 AM

To put it in lay terms, any and ALL people that reject Christ in any way, shape, or form, is antichrist. It is plural. Not one man at the "end times."

The two are not mutually exclusive. The Church believes that all people that reject Christ are antichrist and that in the end times, a human being antichrist will ascend to wordly power.

erowe1

04-08-2011, 10:04 AM

You seem to have fallen for the same jargon as the neo-cons in their belief of dispensational theory.

What neocons are you talking about? Was Irving Kristol a dispensationalist? What about Bill Kristol? Paul Wolfowitz? Doug Feith? Richard Perle? Norman and John Podhoretz? Elliott Abrams? Rudy Giuliani? Max Boot? Robert Kagan? John Bolton?

I can't think of a single noteworthy neoconservative who's an evangelical Christian, much less a dispensationalist.

TheBlackPeterSchiff

04-08-2011, 10:13 AM

Free will.

zerosdontcount

04-08-2011, 10:21 AM

Bring up the Just War doctrine of Christianity and how we should support it.

jmdrake

04-08-2011, 10:45 AM

2 Corinthians 9:7

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

erowe1

04-08-2011, 10:48 AM

2 Corinthians 9:7

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Excellent.

TIMB0B

04-08-2011, 10:48 AM

The Church believes in the end times, a human being antichrist will ascend to wordly power.

Which church? And what scripture says that one man will ascend to worldly power in the end times? By end times, you're referring to the future, correct?

TIMB0B

04-08-2011, 10:49 AM

What neocons are you talking about? I should have said zionists.

TER

04-08-2011, 11:18 AM

Which church? And what scripture says that one man will ascend to worldly power in the end times? By end times, you're referring to the future, correct?

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer in my statement. By church I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church. I do believe all three of the apostolic Churches (that is, the Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Coptic) agree with the belief that in the end time there will arise a man antichrist. So historically, this teaching has been a common teaching stemming back to the early unified Church. This teaching has been handed down since the beginning, most likely told by Christ to the Apostles. (We must remember, that not everything spoken by Christ to the Apostels were written down. In fact, the things that were written down were done decades later).

Here, is a reference to the Antichrist by St. Paul:

2 Thessalonians 2

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness [edit note: here, he is refering to the spirit of antichrist, the antichrist you mentioned earlier] is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Here's another by St. John the Beloved:

1 John 2

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come.

There are other places as well, for example in Daniel, Revelation, etc etc.
Here is a site (http://http://www.sundaylaw.net/opening/87marks.htm)that lists 81 Scriptural references to the Antichrist.

TIMB0B

04-08-2011, 11:52 AM

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer in my statement. By church I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church. I do believe all three of the apostolic Churches (that is, the Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Coptic) agree with the belief that in the end time there will arise a man antichrist. So historically, this teaching has been a common teaching stemming back to the early unified Church. This teaching has been handed down since the beginning, most likely told by Christ to the Apostles. (We must remember, that not everything spoken by Christ to the Apostels were written down. In fact, the things that were written down were done decades later).

Here, is a reference to the Antichrist by St. Paul:

Here's another by St. John the Beloved:

There are other places as well, for example in Daniel, Revelation, etc etc.
Here is a site (http://http://www.sundaylaw.net/opening/87marks.htm)that lists 81 Scriptural references to the Antichrist.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer in my statement. By church I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church. I do believe all three of the apostolic Churches (that is, the Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Coptic) agree with the belief that in the end time there will arise a man antichrist. So historically, this teachings has been a common teaching stemming back to the early unified Church. This teaching has been handed down since the beginning, most likely told by Christ to the Apostles. (We must remember, that not everything spoken by Christ to the Apostels were written down. In fact, the things that were written down were done decades later).

Here, is a reference to the Antichrist by St. Paul:

Here's another by St. John the Beloved:

There are other places as well, for example in Daniel, Revelation, etc etc.
Here is a site (http://http://www.sundaylaw.net/opening/87marks.htm)that lists 81 Scriptural references to the Antichrist.
Yes, I am aware of all those references, however I believe it's been misinterpreted to mean someone and some event way out into the future that has yet to happen. What if I told you that many prophecies have already been fulfilled in Revelation (over the course of the past 2000 years), and that we're on the cusp of Rev. 17?

This video will question everything you believe. It was hard for me to swallow at first, but I couldn't doubt it any longer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUHSR9l864g&feature=channel_video_title

TER

04-08-2011, 11:54 AM

Yes, I am aware of all those references, however I believe it's been misinterpreted to mean someone and some event way out into the future that has yet to happen.

Well, I would say that you can believe what you wish to believe. I choose to believe the teachings that have been handed down since the beginning.

cubical

04-08-2011, 12:00 PM

This is just off the top of my head and may be out of context but.. 2 Thessalonians 3:10

" For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." "

TER

04-08-2011, 12:03 PM

This is just off the top of my head and may be out of context but.. 2 Thessalonians 3:10

" For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." "

One of the most poignant New Testament quotes against socialism I can think of. Good find!

sirgonzo420

04-08-2011, 12:05 PM

I was surprised no one posted this one.

I am not a christian (or a muslim or jew for that matter), but I have read the Bible, and of all the verses of all 66 books, James 1:25 is my favorite.

James 1:25

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

TER

04-08-2011, 12:08 PM

I was surprised no one posted this one.

James 1:25

The Epistle of St. James is my favorite epistle, which is why I have it in my sig! Another excellent find! Thanks!

romacox

04-08-2011, 12:16 PM

This website will help you: http://www.wallbuilders.com/

PaulineDisciple

04-08-2011, 12:23 PM

A Theocracy, as defined by God, is VERY Liberterian.

Previous posters nailed it, 1 Samuel 8 should cinch it for the Christian and ought to be preached on more often.
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king.
11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.
12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.
15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.
17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day."
But passage is not enough, you have to back up to just before this time in Israel’s history, God, through Moses, freed the people and after wandering in the wilderness for 40 years because of their rebellion and lack of trust, they finally entered the Promised Land. God also made it clear that He is the true owner of the land and the only one that can grand permission to occupy or be expelled from the land (Leviticus 25:23-28). He instructed Moses on His law and had the people choose from among themselves judges to settle disputes, there is no mention of paying these judges and since the judicial system was broken all the way down to 10’s, the judges over 10’s would probably only rarely be called up to settle disputes and in a Godly society, this should be the case. The instructions were also to have judges over 50’s, 100’s and 1000’s, this is where our founders got the concept of appealing to higher courts. Appeals to higher judges seemed to only apply to cases that were too difficult for the lower judges (Exodus 18:26) or when cases crossed jurisdictions. This way someone couldn’t just appeal to try to get a different ruling. It was also important to pick Godly men to be the judges, “Men who fear God, men who hate dishonest gain”.
Exodus 18:21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

Here are some good passages concerning property rights.

Ezekiel 46:18 The prince shall not take any of the inheritance of the people, thrusting them out of their property. He shall give his sons their inheritance out of his own property, so that none of my people shall be scattered from his property.”

Ezekiel 45:8 of the land. It is to be his property in Israel. And my princes shall no more oppress my people, but they shall let the house of Israel have the land according to their tribes.

1 Kings 21:3 But Naboth said to Ahab, “The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.”

BTW, in case you don’t know, Ahab was the King at that time.

Then there is the principle of Jubilee where land was to be restored to its original owner.

Leviticus 25:23-28 The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. If, however, a man has no one to redeem it for him but he himself prospers and acquires sufficient means to redeem it, he is to determine the value for the years since he sold it and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it; he can then go back to his own property. But if he does not acquire the means to repay him, what he sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and he can then go back to his property.

Here is link where you can download an audio file and outline explaining this in more detail.

http://orangecoffeecup.com/government-and-law-according-to-the-bible-part-1-002-after-the-exodus/#

I really like his outline.
1. We’ve been asking the wrong question about government
1. What we ask: How can we make democracy work with biblical principles?
2. The answer: Christians attempt to get Christians elected to office so they can pass Christian laws.
3. What we should ask: What is God’s ideal form of government?
2. God’s ideal form of government
1. Government built on God’s Law
2. Wise judges apply this law to resolve legal disputes and punish lawbreakers.
3. The only other civil role are temporary military leaders who defend the people.
4. Groups of tens, fifties, hundreds and thousands provide an environment where these can emerge.
3. Dangerous and common mistakes in government
1. Kings and Presidents
1. 1 Samuel 8 – Israel demands a king after constant threats from the Philistines, God warns against it
2. They sought to replace God as their king
3. 1 Samuel 10:24 – A democratically-elected president is the same as Saul was also elected by the people
4. 2 Samuel 5:1-3 – Other kings, like David, were also elected
5. Jesus said we cannot serve two masters – By calling our leader “president” instead of “king” does not change the loyalty that perhaps conflicts with Christian obligation (American Christians are More American than Christian)
2. Democracy
1. Christianity is about obedience to God and not majority rule.
2. Exodus 16:2-3 – The whole assembly of people (Israel) voted to return to slavery in Egypt.
3. This is the pattern throughout the history of Israel.
4. Barabbas was released to satisfy the crowd. Matthew 15:15
5. Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
3. Legislative body of lawmakers
1. Deuteronomy 4:1-2 - Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
4. Political parties
1. These parties are the result of human law-making. Strife and the hatred produced by political parties is not godly.
5. Taxation
1. Taxation did not begin until 1 Samuel 8 during the sin of Israel. It was among the warnings God gave to them if they were to appoint a king.
6. Government force
1. Matthew 26:52 - Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
2. Luke 22:25-26 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
3. All political power is based on force and coercion. Christians often assume that the Kingdom of God is advanced, if the political system is controlled by better people or better laws are created.
4. Remove all of these things and what is left?
1. Original law
2. Judges

I hope I made the case that allowing yourself and your community to be ruled by God is the most liberating form of self rule on this side of eternity.

PaulineDisciple

04-08-2011, 12:25 PM

Where's Theocrat when you need him?

jmdrake

04-08-2011, 12:25 PM

Are you saying this power has never manifested itself in the history of the world? Are you saying that there has never been unspeakable acts of evil committed before? You seem to have fallen for the same jargon as the neo-cons in their belief of dispensational theory.

*sigh* I will not further derail this thread into a debate that really belongs into the religion subforum. But I will say this. It is dishonest to blame our current foreign policy on the belief that we are still facing an ultimate evil. That is different from the belief that the Jews are still "God's special people" and that the re-establishment of Israel is somehow a requirement to fulfill God's will. I'm seeing this bad logic, this false choice pop up repeatedly on this from without any good rhyme or reason. The problem is not bad escatology, but bad theology. If you don't know the difference you should learn it.

EndSlavery

04-08-2011, 12:39 PM

Why cast off the shackles of state and willingly take them on for the church?

Sola_Fide

04-08-2011, 01:00 PM

Why cast off the shackles of state and willingly take them on for the church?

LoL ...

Churches are completely voluntary dude.

Is the First Presbyterian Church at the end of your street sending armed deacons to your house because you didn't tithe enough?

axiomata

04-08-2011, 01:20 PM

LoL ...

Churches are completely voluntary dude.

Is the First Presbyterian Church at the end of your street sending armed deacons to your house because you didn't tithe enough?

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

But seriously though, this has been a good thread.

heavenlyboy34

04-08-2011, 01:25 PM

In 1 Samuel 22:17 Saul's soldiers refused to be murderers for the regime.
And the king said unto the footmen that stood about him, Turn, and slay the priests of the LORD; because their hand also is with David, and because they knew when he fled, and did not shew it to me. But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of the LORD

Also, I Samuel 8:7-18
7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208:7-18%20;&version=NIV;#fen-NIV-7386a)] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”