National Allegiance

Discuss your walk and aspects of the kingdom of God here with fellow brothers in the Lord.
paulespino
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:02 am

Re: National Allegiance

Post by paulespino » Fri May 01, 2015 4:49 am


User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

National Allegiance

Post by jaydam » Fri May 01, 2015 10:55 am

robbyyoung wrote:We should honor what God has ordained and support those Christians who are in the everyday fight to make this world a better place. Preterism sees this clearly, especially now that Yeshua reigns over all kingdoms of the earth, and I'm thankful for the historical account, witness if you will, that make it possible.
As I said a few weeks ago, I have recently made the move to full preterism, yet I cannot see that it lends itself to your point. Just because I believe Christ has returned, I don't think it has changed the dynamics of my Christian lifestyle and style of warfare. Because he has returned, are Christians to now be a physical and political force?

How do you think Christians are to be involved in the fight?

National allegiance can carry a citizen level vote, and even armed service going over to kill ISIS and other threats to the state and allied states.
Singalphile wrote:
jaydam wrote:I believe that a Christian voting in a democracy is tantamount to attempting to direct the sword of the state in self interest and the interest of Christ, and ultimately an attempt through a majority to maintaining an earthly "Christian" kingdom.
Do you mean that you cannot imagine any situation in which you would vote or attempt to influence government in any way? And you would advise all others to make a decision now, as a matter of holiness, to never vote no matter what?

Is there a label for that sort of idea?
I truly don't see a time when I should vote. My opinion on politics will always stem from my Christian morality, and I don't see that I am ever supposed to enforce my morality on those who do not wish to live the same way. Even if my enforcement comes from swaying enough others to support my view and inflict it upon the minority who disagree with me.

As for my advice, of course I feel my opinion is right and you should hold it as soon as possible.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: National Allegiance

Post by thrombomodulin » Fri May 01, 2015 6:11 pm

Brenden,
TheEditor wrote:My beef with Capitalist/Republican/Christians is that they believe that the free market (so-called) is some how immune to the abuses inherent in any system in which power winds up in the hands of a relative few ... one we accept that
Well, I'm not ready to just accept that. What abuses do you have in mind? Why do you think a capitalist system would results in the concentration of power in the hands of a few, more than any other system? What hook and crook schemes do you see being used to hold onto such power?

I seldom listen to talk show hosts. I'm not not out to defend them, or make a case based on their talking points. I'll take a pass on commenting on that part of your reply.

Regards, Pete

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: National Allegiance

Post by TheEditor » Fri May 01, 2015 9:51 pm


Hi Pete,

I really don't want to spend a lot of time piling on quote after quote and example after example to shore up my postion. I could, but I don't want to. I have come to view this subject much as I have arguing over religious ideology with skeptics; either the other side is willing to believe that their worldview could be wrong, and another correct (meaning, they are open to faith which contains an element of choice), or they aren't, and no matter how much "evidence" is stacked up, they will plow forward with their current world view.

However, you sort of truncated my post in such a way as to alter the it slightly. But leaving that aside, I will say this; First and foremost, I thought I made it clear that I don't have a beef with an atheist that thinks like on Objectivist. It's the Christians that do that I take issue with. When godless men set their sights on (to use the phrase) getting as much "tail" as they can, they are acting without a conscience that is governed by a Biblical precept, and perfectly naturally, in some sense. The male of most species is little more than a Johnny Appleseed spreading it's DNA around. Governed by some kind of over-arching moral creed, men try to get that in check.

Likewise, when people run businesses that take advantage of the desperation of certain people (let's choose an easy example, that of the old "Company Store") then they are not demonstrating love and charity. If they are atheistic, or negative Deists (the kind that think God was just bored and shoved us here and walked away) then they are merely acting like animals, born to be led to slaughter. There is no over-arching concern for fellow man, only so far as they are chattel.

Yes, before you dump a lot of arguments on here, I have heard and read the defenses; providing a service or product; giving people jobs they would not have otherwise had, blah, blah, blah. But after due consideration over the years and some harsh life-lessons, I view much of that as mere sophistry designed to assuage any latent guilt. By the way, I used to think much more like you, so you are dealing with an "apostate" here. :lol:

If we can agree that much harm has been done by people acting in the name of Christianity due to their fallen natures and desire for control, then why is it such a stretch to accept that a paradigm designed to "capitalize" on ones personal ambitions and greed would somehow yield better fruitage? Its a rationally blind proposition on it's face.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: National Allegiance

Post by thrombomodulin » Sat May 02, 2015 10:07 am

TheEditor wrote: However, you sort of truncated my post in such a way as to alter the it slightly.
I read over this again, and I'm not sure what alteration in meaning you have in mind. My intentions are to accurately understand and represent what you are saying, and I apologize for having missed something here.
TheEditor wrote: I will say this; First and foremost, I thought I made it clear that I don't have a beef with an atheist that thinks like on Objectivist. It's the Christians that do that I take issue with.
I must admit to being a bit confused by this statement - I'm not perceiving why it of foremost importance that you are expressing that you don't have a beef with atheists. As far as I know, this wasn't the topic at hand. I had not stated, and I don't believe that I implied that, you have a beef atheist objectivists. Rather, the context is that you expressed that you have a beef with Christians who have certain political/economic beliefs. Since I would qualify, at least least partially, as the type of Christian you have a beef with, the context of our present discussion has pertained to Christians - not atheists.
TheEditor wrote: Likewise, when people run businesses that take advantage of the desperation of certain people (let's choose an easy example, that of the old "Company Store") then they are not demonstrating love and charity. If they are atheistic, or negative Deists (the kind that think God was just bored and shoved us here and walked away) then they are merely acting like animals, born to be led to slaughter. There is no over-arching concern for fellow man, only so far as they are chattel. ... Yes, before you dump a lot of arguments on here ....
Ok then, since you've heard it all before, I'll refrain from expounding on homesteading, praxeology, and subjective value theory to address this topic. If you can point me in the right direction towards gaining an understanding of where the flaws in those ideas are, that would be most welcome. I would only like to point out that you are consistently conflated capitalism with Ayn Rand's value system. There is nothing about capitalism that prohibits or discourages those who wish to do so from being kind, looking out for others, or from being charitable. Rather, what cannot be said to be demonstrating love and charity is the idea that it has to be compulsory as is characteristic of non-capitalists systems.
TheEditor wrote: why is it such a stretch to accept that a paradigm designed to "capitalize" on ones personal ambitions and greed would somehow yield better fruitage? Its a rationally blind proposition on it's face.
I disagree with you here. If you know the topics I mentioned in the previous paragraph, then you'll know why that's a huge stretch. I'll refrain from dumping a lot of arguments here for now.

Regards, Pete

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

National Allegiance

Post by robbyyoung » Sat May 02, 2015 11:08 am

jaydam wrote:
robbyyoung wrote:We should honor what God has ordained and support those Christians who are in the everyday fight to make this world a better place. Preterism sees this clearly, especially now that Yeshua reigns over all kingdoms of the earth, and I'm thankful for the historical account, witness if you will, that make it possible.
As I said a few weeks ago, I have recently made the move to full preterism, yet I cannot see that it lends itself to your point. Just because I believe Christ has returned, I don't think it has changed the dynamics of my Christian lifestyle and style of warfare. Because he has returned, are Christians to now be a physical and political force?

How do you think Christians are to be involved in the fight?

National allegiance can carry a citizen level vote, and even armed service going over to kill ISIS and other threats to the state and allied states.
Hey jaydam,

I should point out a flaw I have, concerning responding to questions, in using the term, "we", when I oft should say, "I". Therefore, I believe the NT Writers testimony gives me the opportunity to serve God, in Christ, in the things (specifically government) sanctioned by Him as righteous. I believe, as a Christian, I can be gainfully employed in the fight for the righteousness of God by upholding what Paul said to Timothy; 1 Timothy 6:11-12. I also bear in mind Romans 14:23.

I believe God established governments, as I previously stated. If "the sword" is meeted out, everything I said in the previous paragraph applies TO MY personal faith in any given situation.

God Bless.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: National Allegiance

Post by Singalphile » Sat May 02, 2015 3:30 pm

jaydam wrote:I truly don't see a time when I should vote. My opinion on politics will always stem from my Christian morality, and I don't see that I am ever supposed to enforce my morality on those who do not wish to live the same way. Even if my enforcement comes from swaying enough others to support my view and inflict it upon the minority who disagree with me.
I'm sure you can imagine laws or ordinances that don't have anything to do with enforcing your morality on anyone. In other cases, voting may be the opportunity to actually stop an evil thing from being enforced. We have rules or authorities throughout life - parents, employers, gov't - which involve punishment of some sort, and I am not sure where (or why) you draw the line on participation in those arrangements, nor do I understand why you seem to view the act of voting as necessarily and universally sinful.

Myself, I have little interest in politics, and if there were ever a referendum to require you to vote, I'd vote against it.

Regarding the OP, I agree that it's not very wise to pledge unconditional allegiance to anything (besides God). Might work out, but you never know. I also wouldn't join the type of standing military that we have now. I could only make a decision to use force on a case by case basis. As it is, joining the military crosses the line into being "unequally yoked (2 Cor 6:13ff), I think. But if, say, my sister wanted to join the (U.S.) military now, then I'd caution her, but I couldn't condemn her for joining. I'd say the same if she wanted to hold some government position.

So that's my general position.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: National Allegiance

Post by TheEditor » Sun May 03, 2015 1:32 am

Hi Pete,

I apologize for my tendency to stray from topic. To be candid, I express my ideas better oratorically, using hyperbole and reductionism to good effect. It doesn't translate well to the written format. If you and I sat down for a cup of coffee, I am sure I could lay it out fairly well in about 15 minutes. Unfortunately, I follow a stream of consciousness and at times it doesn't "type" well. Perhaps it would "anti-type" well. :lol:

Your reading and command and passion on these issues far eclipses mine, I'm afraid. I will not pretend to have studied it from all angles in it's varieties and colors. However, I will say that this is much like a faculty lounge discussion--it's real-world implications are usually absent.

That being said, you stated/asked:

There is nothing about capitalism that prohibits or discourages those who wish to do so from being kind, looking out for others, or from being charitable.


You are correct. And I don't think I implied otherwise. What I implied was that capitalism relies on pursuing self-interests first and foremost. No atheist-capitalist would deny this. Christian ones try to--painfully, I think, because their conscience pokes them a bit. But either way, I agree. I have known at least three decent business owners personally, that started out small, and appeared to build a large business fairly (by large I mean one that nets at least 500,000 per year), and I have no reason to believe that they practiced unethical business; although I admittedly was not privy to their private matters.

However, I have known more that employed unethical and uncompassionate practices that did as well or better than the aforementioned three. I knew one fellow that routinely paid his immigrant workforce half what he paid his Gringo, because he knew the Mexicans would work for less. He was also bright enough to realize that he couldn't tell the Mexicans that, and instructed the Gringos to not share the knowledge of what they made with the Mexicans.

Now, you (or at least people in your camp) will argue "Yes, but they valued the money they were getting more than not having a job." That's true. But is it ethical? If you say "Yes", then where do you draw the line? What if someone asks you to hire them for 25.00 per day because they are desperate? Ethical? How about 10.00? How about they agree to live in your barn and call you "Massa"?

Then there is the issue of ownership. I have heard Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists argue that they have the right to sell their children. I have heard the argument (most infamously by Neal Boortz) that the free market should dictate whether kiddie porn is available on TV, arguing that it wouldn't be because people wouldn't tolerate it. I am of the opinion that if you let an ideologue speak long enough, he will begin to sound like a lunatic.

I think both of us would yield to the fact that a truly benevolent Dictatorship (under say, Jesus) would cut through alot of bureaucracy and get things done. He would also be able to distinguish between good an bad motives. And yet, the most benevolent and fair human would likely be corrupted with that amount of power.

Likewise, 10 perfect humans could probably be put in a room together to accomplish a task and they would have a synergism that is without taint of one lording it over another. Put 10 imperfect people in a room, and the one with the most drive will likely lord it over the others.

Humans practice imperfect, humanly contrived systems, like imperfect humans. To say that the free market is somehow "magical" and that it always "self-corrects" is a point of view that comes from being intoxicated by a particular ideology and it's trappings. I don't think it's realistic. I also know that corrections in the market can not only take years (sometimes decades), but also leaves a massive economic body-count in their wake. Meanwhile, the gamers in that system saw the handwriting on the wall, liquidated their assets, paid off their buddies and headed for the Cayman Islands. Ethical? Christian? Don't think so. But I have heard (and this is where I get nauseated) Christians try to defend such actions using the same rhetoric that Ayn Rand used, which is why I target her specifically.

The irony of all of this is that the main proponents of these various theories, enjoy all of the benefits of the governments they decry; make profits capitalizing on the frustrations of their tax-burdened readers/fans and have the luxury of knowing their theories will never be completely realized, hence, unable to be falsified.

I also wonder how the "Church" would fit into such a matrix? For example, (by church I mean the institutional church, ie Roman Catholicism, etc.) a large Church would have a built-in advantage over small partnerships, guilds, etc. due to the sheer size of them. Have all of the implications of this economic theory, if put into actual practice, been thought out? The mind could only imagine...By the way, what do you think of Distributism?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: National Allegiance

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed May 06, 2015 7:40 pm

TheEditor wrote: I apologize for my tendency to stray from topic. To be candid, I express my ideas better oratorically, using hyperbole and reductionism to good effect. It doesn't translate well to the written format. If you and I sat down for a cup of coffee, I am sure I could lay it out fairly well in about 15 minutes. Unfortunately, I follow a stream of consciousness and at times it doesn't "type" well. Perhaps it would "anti-type" well. :lol:
Thats alright. Thanks for clarifying your thoughts.
TheEditor wrote: Your reading and command and passion on these issues far eclipses mine, I'm afraid. I will not pretend to have studied it from all angles in it's varieties and colors.
I have not studied it from all angles either. I have become well read in the classical and Austrian schools of thought, but I am have not made much of any effort to study others.
TheEditor wrote:
There is nothing about capitalism that prohibits or discourages those who wish to do so from being kind, looking out for others, or from being charitable.

You are correct. And I don't think I implied otherwise. What I implied was that capitalism relies on pursuing self-interests first and foremost. No atheist-capitalist would deny this. Christian ones try to--painfully, I think, because their conscience pokes them a bit. But either way, I agree.
People will pursue their self-interests in any economic system - it is human nature to do so, and no economic system will change that. What distinguishes one economic system from another is how property rights are defined. Given that self interest is a fact of life, I do not see how other systems are offering a superior alternative. If I were to chose the "first and foremost feature of capitalism", I would have to say that it is not about self interest, but rather about respecting for the private property of others. Thus self-interest in capitalism results in human beings making efforts towards meeting the needs of others which is of beneficial to all. My conscience does poke me about the violation of property rights, but I can honestly say that it in no way has been poking me about favoring a capitalist economic system. Perhaps I am missing something, or my conscience is deficient.
TheEditor wrote: Now, you (or at least people in your camp) will argue "Yes, but they valued the money they were getting more than not having a job." That's true. But is it ethical? If you say "Yes", then where do you draw the line?
One question on this story: Why does the employer higher any Gringo's at all? If indeed the Gringo's and Mexicans provide the same value in their labor, then it seems to me his self-interest would no be to not higher any Gringo's at all. Gringo wages then go to zero, or are at least bid down to Mexican levels. But in the story this was not so. How can it be?

Nonetheless, I would hold the opinion that unequal wages are ethical (what do you think of Matthew 20:1-15 as a potentially supporting text)? Where then do I draw the line? I would draw the line as per Lockean property rights. Briefly, the employee owns his own will and body, and he also owns that which he as appropriated to himself by either homesteading or that others have relinquished to him through free trade. The employer may not violate these property rights in his body or possessions. The comment about "living in my barn and calling me [master]" implies the idea that a free market drives wages to zero. I cannot agree that this outcome occurs. In a free market laborers are able to command the value of their work in compensation.
TheEditor wrote: Humans practice imperfect, humanly contrived systems, like imperfect humans. To say that the free market is somehow "magical" and that it always "self-corrects" is a point of view that comes from being intoxicated by a particular ideology and it's trappings. I don't think it's realistic.
I agree. It is my view that a free market system is superior. It is not my view that it brings about some sort of Utopia.
TheEditor wrote: I also know that corrections in the market can not only take years ...
Maybe they do, but it seems to me that political corrections, if they happen at all, normally take years to accomplish.
TheEditor wrote: Meanwhile, the gamers in that system saw the handwriting on the wall, liquidated their assets, paid off their buddies and headed for the Cayman Islands. Ethical? Christian? Don't think so.
You'll have to elaborate for me to know exactly the case you are referring to here. I think you are referring to a case of fraud. I hold the opinion that engaging in fraud is unethical and unchristian. I think all capitalists would say the same.
TheEditor wrote: But I have heard (and this is where I get nauseated) Christians try to defend such actions using the same rhetoric that Ayn Rand used, which is why I target her specifically.
I stated earlier that I'm not a supporter Ayn Rand. If I've made an error in using her rhetoric please point it out.
TheEditor wrote: The irony of all of this is that the main proponents of these various theories, enjoy all of the benefits of the governments they decry; make profits capitalizing on the frustrations of their tax-burdened readers/fans and have the luxury of knowing their theories will never be completely realized, hence, unable to be falsified.
It is begging the question to suppose the government is, on agregate, providing benefits to be enjoyed. The Austrian economic ideas are based on a process logical deduction (see praxeology). If indeed that logical process is flaws, then it is falsified.
TheEditor wrote: Have all of the implications of this economic theory, if put into actual practice, been thought out? The mind could only imagine...
No. Hayek's argument about the "Pretense of Knowledge" comes to mind. The same criticism applies equally well to any system - even the current one. Our present rulers are human beings with very finite knowledge, who are simply unable to manage an economy and think through all implications of their ongoing decisions.
TheEditor wrote: I also wonder how the "Church" would fit into such a matrix? For example, (by church I mean the institutional church, ie Roman Catholicism, etc.) a large Church would have a built-in advantage over small partnerships, guilds, etc. due to the sheer size of them.
This would be one implication I have not thought about until you raised the topic. What advantages did you have in mind? I'm thinking that real estate and ability to support one or more full time employees is a burden on small churchs. For sizes beyond a few hundred people this shouldn't really matter. Advertising a name brand would potentially help a larger organization. How would you see these factors being different under other economic systems?
TheEditor wrote: I have heard Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists argue that they have the right to sell their children.
This is an interesting question that I haven't yet given much thought to. It strikes me as an insufficiently defined question because one can read into it, or not, whether there is some wrongdoing involved (e.g. presence or absence of abuse by old or new parents, etc,.) and what other motivations may or may not be present. I think other circumstances have to be relevant, and primary in judging the matter, and I could see law going either way on this point in an ancap system. This leads me to ask: how would you rank these in order of offensiveness? To simply give children away (e.g. price = $0.00)? To pay to send them away ( price < 0 )? or to receive money to send them away ( price > 0 )? My own is priceless to me, and would not be given up. I can't think of a situation that would necessitate giving my own up parental rights.
TheEditor wrote: By the way, what do you think of Distributism?
I have not read about this, but have made note of it and will look into it sometime.

Post Reply

Return to “The Kingdom”