Upcoming Election

[dwight92070]

Jepne,

Yes, I have seen all that was on that video. She is definitely physically unfit for any office, much less the presidency. The real unimagineable crime is that the media and the Democrats who know she is physically unfit are trying to hide it from the American people. I'll bet most Democrats don't even know, or are denying it.

Others have speculated that this will cause Obama to somehow attempt to remain in office! I don't know how that could happen unless he just simply gives an executive order to allow that to happen. ???

But of course even if she were 100% healthy, she and Bill are crooks, and have done much harm to this country. Just the fact that they think they are above the law (and unfortunately, the FBI director Comey, confirmed that they are), is enough to disqualify her.

[mattrose]

Mattrose,

It amazes me to see how far you (and Paidon) will go to find a way to disagree with me.

I never purposefully look for a way to disagree with you The reason it has happened a few times in a row, here, is because we actually disagree on some principles and I find you use a high degree of fallacious argumentation.

If government is a necessary evil, then so are families, because God created them, among other reasons, to give structure to a fallen world as well. And you could say He created the church, among other reasons, to do the same.

For instance, this is a good example of a logical fallacy. It's a non-sequitur (false IF, THEN). The three institutions are quite different. God did not initiate human government for His people. Israel insisted. And while I would agree that it is ultimately better for the fallen world to have human government than anarchy (which is why God ordains it), that doesn't make it more than a necessary evil. Family, on the other hand, was part of creation before the fall of human kind. God made Adam & Eve and the concept of procreation. Likewise, the Church (human beings participating in the Trinitarian life) was always God's plan. The only aspect of the church that was brought on by the fall is the witnessing aspect. So your suggestion simply doesn't follow.

This society is fond of hating religion and politics, yet both were created by God. "Pure and undefiled religion is to visit orphans and widows ... etc."

There are things that governments can do that are good. And there are things that religions can do that are good. I wouldn't say either was created by God. Indeed, God spent much time in the Bible criticizing those two institutions as inherently corrupt.

God told Adam and Eve to fill and subdue the earth and to rule over the animals, fish,etc. Thus we have the origin of government and politics.

I was under the impression that Trump & Clinton were candidates to lead a nation of people. News that they are only seeking ruler-ship of the animal kingdom is a great relief and explains why Trump has acted like an animal for most of his life.

[dwight92070]

For instance, this is a good example of a logical fallacy. It's a non-sequitur (false IF, THEN). The three institutions are quite different. God did not initiate human government for His people. Israel insisted. And while I would agree that it is ultimately better for the fallen world to have human government than anarchy (which is why God ordains it), that doesn't make it more than a necessary evil. Family, on the other hand, was part of creation before the fall of human kind. God made Adam & Eve and the concept of procreation. Likewise, the Church (human beings participating in the Trinitarian life) was always God's plan. The only aspect of the church that was brought on by the fall is the witnessing aspect. So your suggestion simply doesn't follow.

Dwight speaking: Human government, under His authoity, was also part of creation before the fall. God told Adam and Eve to fill the earth and to SUBDUE it, and to rule over the animals. So Adam and Eve were the governors, so to speak, of the earth, BEFORE the fall. Your humor of Trump and Hillary ruling over the animals is funny, but you are overlooking 2 things:

1. Adam and Eve were to subdue the earth, that means rule and control of people, animals and resources. They were under God's authority and He gave them authority to subdue the earth - that includes people since they were told to be fruitful and multiply, which of course means families.
.

2. Adam and Eve could not properly rule over all the animals without help, which their children and grandchildren, etc. would provide. I've never been a keeper of animals, but I think I am correct that if you are put in charge of a large number of them, you will need all the help you can get from other people. So, human government is necessary to even properly rule over the animal kingdom.

So, yes, God did create human government, i.e. under His authority, long before Israel came on the scene. "For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established (or created) by God." Romans 13:1 And wherever you have human government, even when it is instituted by God, you are going to have politics.

After the flood, God told Noah and his family, among other things to institute capital punishment. Again, more human government under His authority.
I agree with you that God did not create human government that is not submitted to Him.

This society is fond of hating religion and politics, yet both were created by God. "Pure and undefiled religion is to visit orphans and widows ... etc."

Apparently there IS such a thing as PURE and UNDEFILED religion. Where in the Bible do you see God criticizing pure and undefiled religion? He praises it! He does not criticize it.

And where in the Bible do you see God criticizing government leaders who submit to Him? Several kings of Judah were known for their submission to God, even though they still had flaws. And even with the flaws, God praises their reforms and their hearts.

I don't think it is religion and politics that are inherently corrupt, it's men's hearts. Here again, by that same reasoning we could say that families and churches are inherently corrupt. But it is our hearts that are bent toward evil, unless we repent and make Jesus our authority and submit to Him.

[thrombomodulin]

Dwight,

About the point #2, ruling over animals requires only a division of labor. this can be attained with a market economy and without necessity of a poltical/government system.

Pete

[mattrose]

Mattrose,

It is my understanding that a Christian's duty is to be a faithful steward of the resources God has given to each of us. Part of this is a duty to work, using our bodies, so that we are able to give some part of the fruit of our labor to those who are lacking in material things (e.g. the benevolence of Eph 4:28b). Why does God admonish us to do this? Is it solely to test our faith to see if we are or are not selfish? Is it only because He cares about the well being of the recipients who are in need of charity? Is it a combination of both, or some other reason?

If God has concerns about the well being of the poor, and if we are obliged as Christians to alleviate their difficulties by the provision of goods and/or services, then it follows that a connection is made between the allocation of the material things in this world and Christian ethics. Each Christian is able to give some finite amount in charity, and no doubt this is beneficial for those who are in need. How much greater, however, are the benefits that the poor attain through a strong economy that floods the world with the goods it produces, and with jobs that it creates which produce rising real wages?

I don't object to any of your thoughts so far....

It is difficult for me to be dispassionate about the political structure that affects so much of every persons life and well being, but especially those who are least well off among us. Consider that, in the United States, about 1/3 of economic activity is government spending and the remaining 2/3 is regulated in ways to numerous to count. My point is that a significant portion of the scarce resources God has placed in this world are being controlled through political means.

Perhaps I overstated my position. I didn't intend to argue that it would be wrong to care about ones earthly government... its structure... it's relationship to the economy, etc. I was upset that, in my observation, many Christians (perhaps especially in America?) seem to be MORE passionate about earthly politics than they are about the Kingdom of God.

I find the above to make a compelling argument that political matters are a very important topic for the Christian, however, I know you see it differently. Am I making some mistake in reasoning, as described above, to arrive at the conclusion that this is a very important topic for Christians?

I don't think we really see it differently in kind, perhaps just in degree. My point was no so much that the type of government doesn't matter (I think some forms of government are better than others, for sure). My point was that the choice between Trump & Clinton isn't anything, in my opinion, for Christians to get excited about.

In addition, Steve recently went through a significant effort, in another thread, to argue that socialism is not consistent with justice from a Christian point of view. As socialism is already practiced on a large scale where we reside, it is an injustice of a significant magnitude. Should the Christian, who has an ethical concern that justice is done, not have passion in favor of its repeal?

Again, I think we agree more than disagree. I do think Christians should oppose increasing socialism.

Thanks for the dialogue

[mattrose]

Apparently there IS such a thing as PURE and UNDEFILED religion. Where in the Bible do you see God criticizing pure and undefiled religion? He praises it! He does not criticize it.

The verse you quote is pretty much the only positive thing in the entire New Testament about 'religion'... everywhere else it is the religious system that is under heavy critique

but I think this is a tangent from what this thread is really about.

[thrombomodulin]

Matt,

Thanks for the reply.

Pete

[dwight92070]

[quote="thrombomodulin"]Dwight,

About the point #2, ruling over animals requires only a division of labor. this can be attained with a market economy and without necessity of a poltical/government system.

Dwight speaking: That's easy for you to say, given that you live in a nation with a political/government system. But try raising or ruling over a large amount of animals in a land where there are no laws and no one to enforce those laws, i.e. no political/government system. There would be thievery, rape, and murder, etc. It's called anarchy.

[thrombomodulin]

But try raising or ruling over a large amount of animals in a land where there are no laws and no one to enforce those laws, i.e. no political/government system.

Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Jacob and Lot seem to have accomplished raising a large amount of animals without any apparent political system. There are probably other OT characters that would suffice as well - perhaps even Israel between the fall of one judge, and rise of another.

Further, in order to be a ruler one must have someone to rule over. How could the problem be resolved of establishing that "A" rules over "B", as opposed to "B" being the ruler over "A"?. If men cannot agree about who the ruler is, then your proposed solution (that we must have one) does not resolve conflict except by brute force - which in any case is merely theft, slavery, or even murder of the one to whom is subjugated by that force.

There would be thievery, rape, and murder, etc. It's called anarchy.

You are relying on the assumption that law, private property, and enforcement can only be recognized and provided for by a State. Gustave de Molinari, Murray N. Rothbard, Thomas E. Woods, Robert P. Murphy, Hans Herman Hoppe, and others have argued that this is not so. I regard their arguments favorably, and have found myself unable to prove that they are in error.

[dwight92070]

Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Jacob and Lot seem to have accomplished raising a large amount of animals without any apparent political system. There are probably other OT characters that would suffice as well - perhaps even Israel between the fall of one judge, and rise of another.

Dwight speaking: First of all, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Lot had God supernaturally and directly watching over them and protecting them. This is obviously not the norm, because Romans 13 tells us that God uses rulers to punish evildoers and praise those who do right. Esau, because he was a godless man, probably did not have God's direct protection. Also, none of them, possibly with the exception of Esau, were living in a land without rulers, or a Ruler. Esau, it appears, became a ruler himself in Edom. So rulers, kings, etc. always evolve eventually. Sometimes, through brute force, they "appoint" themselves as rulers. Sometimes, as in the case of the judges of Israel, it appears God appoints them.

Further, in order to be a ruler one must have someone to rule over. How could the problem be resolved of establishing that "A" rules over "B", as opposed to "B" being the ruler over "A"?. If men cannot agree about who the ruler is, then your proposed solution (that we must have one) does not resolve conflict except by brute force - which in any case is merely theft, slavery, or even murder of the one to whom is subjugated by that force.

Dwight speaking: In our country the solution of who rules over who is called an election, which requires a government and a military to enforce the outcome. should there be a rebellion.

Dwight speaking: I'm not saying that we must have a ruler. If you want anarchy, then don't appoint one. I am saying that the only way there will not be anarchy when there is no ruler, is if God is supernaturally protecting His people or even other people.


You are relying on the assumption that law, private property, and enforcement can only be recognized and provided for by a State. Gustave de Molinari, Murray N. Rothbard, Thomas E. Woods, Robert P. Murphy, Hans Herman Hoppe, and others have argued that this is not so. I regard their arguments favorably, and have found myself unable to prove that they are in error.

Dwight: Who else or what else can recognize and provide for those things? (Again, except for God doing it supernaturally)