Dismantling the Declaration of Independence

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Having the right to express your opinion is not the same as having immunity to being ridiculed when your opinion is ridiculous.

Having the right to express my opinion is a natural right.

Having the power to oppress or kill the said people exercising their natural rights is not a natural right, that is power reserved for statists.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] It's fair to say that the country certainly would have never reached the prosperity and power it achieved if it had stayed true to a cramped vision reliant on yeoman farmers which is what Jefferson often espoused.

So what is better, prosperity and power or freedom?

If you are after prosperity and/or power, then become a 1%'er or one of their minions in government.

Hitler enjoyed prosperity and power, that is, before the war went south for him. Should we celebrate him as well?

Collectivism does bring prosperity and power. It creates world conquering armies and vast pots of money with untold amounts of wealth.

Originally posted by whodey
Why do you keep bringing up scripture as if it mattered to you?

Like a lawyer, you seek scripture only to find fault with those who adhere to it. Like a lawyer, you accuse me of violating scripture by questioning those in authority over me, by suggesting that it is actually a sin to hold God's law above that of man.

Why then was Jesus nailed to a cross ...[text shortened]... the weakest and most vulnerable human beings being oppressed and killed is mind boggling to me.

That's a not very persuasive dodge.

What did Paul say in Romans 13:1-2? I'll help:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.


Not exactly a clarion call to resist the evil "collectivists" is it?

Jesus didn't say a single word about abortion (which was common at the time) so he did remain silent about it. That might be "mind boggling" to you (your mind is easily boggled) but it is a fact if your Gospels are to be believed.

Originally posted by whodey
First of all, calling people a "teabagger" is derogatory and dismissive. These people have concerns about their government and have a right to voice those concerns just like yourself, assuming you ever had any.

Just like the apostles in the days of old, they will be marginalized, oppressed, and perhaps worse. Given the message of Revelation, someday thos ...[text shortened]... o not accept the statist "mark" will all be lined up and beheaded.

The killing will continue.

You actually believe in the nonsense of Revelation?

ISIS has a version of it:

An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Compare with Revelation where Jesus comes back riding on a white horse with the armies from heaven behind him to defeat the Beast and False Prophet's armies and cast those two bad guys alive "into a lake of fire burning with brimstone". After which, JC slays their entire army with a sword "which sword proceeded out of his mouth".

Crazy stuff.

Originally posted by whodey
Well then, whatever Grotius thinks is swell with me. Perhaps we should make him our source of all truthiness? 😛

I understand you have no idea who Grotius is. Your smug ignorance is appalling.

Originally posted by whodey
So what is better, prosperity and power or freedom?

If you are after prosperity and/or power, then become a 1%'er or one of their minions in government.

Hitler enjoyed prosperity and power, that is, before the war went south for him. Should we celebrate him as well?

Collectivism does bring prosperity and power. It creates world conquering armies and vast pots of money with untold amounts of wealth.

According to your twisted definition, anyone who doesn't want Man living like a bunch of solitary, antisocial hermits is a "collectivist".

Jefferson would surely be a collectivist, statist according to your crazy definitions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
According to your twisted definition, anyone who doesn't want Man living like a bunch of solitary, antisocial hermits is a "collectivist".

Jefferson would surely be a collectivist, statist according to your crazy definitions.

Whodey himself would be one. An interesting exercise in doublethink.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's a not very persuasive dodge.

What did Paul say in Romans 13:1-2? I'll help:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: [b]the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation ...[text shortened]... gling" to you (your mind is easily boggled) but it is a fact if your Gospels are to be believed.[/b]

So this brings up some interesting questions. Was the American Revolution ordained of God? Did God ordain a rebellion? If not, why should we follow it now? If so, why does God seem to change his mind?

Also, was Hitler ordained of God? Should we all have blindly followed Hitler?

To answer these questions, its best to study 1 Samuel 8.

1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.

2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.

3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

So as we see, God did not wish to appoint sinful man over other men. God simply allowed it because the people of Israel rejected him as their God. Men have kings and Presidents because man has rejected his God.

God uses government to help suppress the evil in the world, however, that same government can become a great evil as well, just like we see from Nazi Germany. God even said as much. Once men are given such power abuses naturally flow and once such abuses exceed a certain degree of evil, God overthrows them as well.

So what does it mean to "resist" world governments? Do I resist my government because I may vote against those in power now? Do I resist my government because I speak out about the abuses we suffer from it? I would submit that voices like mine are necessary in order to help quell the leanings toward an evil tyranny like we saw in Nazi Germany. I don't go around breaking their laws, so am I resisting?

Speaking of breaking laws, I am reminded of a priest in Nazi Germany who spoke out against the genocide. He was soon placed in prison and he received a visit from a fellow Christian. The man who came to visit him asked, "Why are you in here"? To which he replied, "The question is not why I am in here, the question is why you are out there."

Originally posted by no1marauder
According to your twisted definition, anyone who doesn't want Man living like a bunch of solitary, antisocial hermits is a "collectivist".

Jefferson would surely be a collectivist, statist according to your crazy definitions.

I don't oppose government, I oppose the further centralization of power.

I understand the nature of man. Man seeks power and then seeks more power and abuses such power.

This is a documented fact, one that has been studied in cases like the Stanford Experiment. Men like Jefferson realized this and is why they tried to separate power and balance it out via Federalism and the 3 branches of government. However, over the years this has deteriorated to the point that the Executive Branch pretty much runs the show. States are merely a shell of what they used to be.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I understand you have no idea who Grotius is. Your smug ignorance is appalling.

Who says I don't? I understand he discussed natural law and that he was a Christian apologist. So what? Am I now to relinquish all power and authority to him? He is no better than you or I.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You actually believe in the nonsense of Revelation?

ISIS has a version of it:

An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, [b]Jesus[/ ...[text shortened]... C slays their entire army with a sword "which sword proceeded out of his mouth".

Crazy stuff.

Your child like understanding of Revelation is not surprising. No one believes that Jesus has an actual sword coming from his mouth. The Bible uses the sword as a symbol that the Word of God is like a sword. The word is where his power and might are. God created with his Word.

Revelation is nothing more than already written prophecies from Daniel, with a slightly different spin.

So what is more powerful, the sword or the pen? Those in Islam would probably opt for an actual sword, as where I would say it is the power of thoughts expressed as words, none of which are more powerful than God's Word.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Having the right to express your opinion is not the same as having immunity to being ridiculed when your opinion is ridiculous.

That is true, and you may have to face ridicule as well. However, I would presume, perhaps wrongly so, that the intellect of people playing chess is a bit higher than the general population, and that their conduct might be a bit more civil.

Originally posted by no1marauder
According to your twisted definition, anyone who doesn't want Man living like a bunch of solitary, antisocial hermits is a "collectivist".

Jefferson would surely be a collectivist, statist according to your crazy definitions.

To utter those words, you have to be totally ignorant of Austrian economics. Not to Mention Riccardo and Smith.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't oppose government, I oppose the further centralization of power.

I understand the nature of man. Man seeks power and then seeks more power and abuses such power.

This is a documented fact, one that has been studied in cases like the Stanford Experiment. Men like Jefferson realized this and is why they tried to separate power and balance it ...[text shortened]... Executive Branch pretty much runs the show. States are merely a shell of what they used to be.

And if you read the Anti Federalist writers, they all predicted exactly what has happened, redeeming them as the more forward thinkers than the Federalists.

Originally posted by normbenign
And if you read the Anti Federalist writers, they all predicted exactly what has happened, redeeming them as the more forward thinkers than the Federalists.

So to you the outcome of (US) history is the product of a force of nature - human nature - and not the product of historical actions and choices that can be attributed to their proper sources, can be either resisted or transformed or of course reproduced... Politics, then, is futile and there is no prospect of a different world...