Jim Wallace

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I disagree. God's rule of Israel was anything but libertarian. If God were a libertarian, he would consider it kosher if an Israelite chose to film a porn video in his basement, or smoke marijuana at the kitchen table, etc. As long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others or harm others, it's OK. That's a decent political philosophy, for the most part, but I don't think the ten commandments were meant to be interpreted that way.[/b]

If you look at the original ten commandments, the odd part about them is that there are no penalties for violating them once they were given. The penalties came later under Mosaic law.

Just for the sake of argument. lets say there was no Mosaic law to act punitively towards those who violated the ten commandments. Harm would eventually catch up to them via God withdrawing himself from them and ultimately judging them in the next life. In fact, eventually this is what happened. The Israelites eventually gave into idolatry without the punitive action taken against them. So what happened next? God withdrew himself and they were invaded by foriegn armies time after time after time.

Do keep in mind, however, that God entered a covenant with the children of Israel. In short, they were instructed by Moses the conditions to the covenant and they all agreed. This is a far cry from those of us drug by our ear into a system of government that we never agreed to in the first place. In this respect, free will was upheld.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]You make it sound as if they were doing the will of God by selecting a king when this cleary is not the case.

I understand that part, but I find it hard to believe that God did not foreordain that Christ would be King David's descendant.

With this logic, God foreordained Adam taking the forbidden fruit. I still say that it was not his will for Adam to sin, much like it was not his will for the Israelites to choose a king to rule over them. Having said that, he knew that both would happen and had a plan in place to try and save them despite themselves.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Two hundred years from now, the conservatives will be standing by today's liberal policies as if they were God's honest truth, while the liberals of tomorrow will still be exploring and implementing new ideas.

The policies of progressives are not sustainable epi. Just look around. Look at the finacial state of Greece, and Spain and the US etc.

We both know the end game don't we. Just look at Revelation and tell me how this liberal dogma leads us to our utopia.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, extremely wealthy people will see their taxes increase to pay for it, but the rich have been getting lower tax rates ever since Reagan anyway, so it's about time we start moving in the other direction. The American system couldn't be more geared toward benefiting the rich as it is, and there's nothing particularly Christian about that.[/b]

You seem to be in favor of allowing people to smoke pot and film porn in their basements and allow abortions but draw the line when it comes to greedy rich people not helping the poor. Why? Why are you in favor of legislating morality only when it comes to the "rich"? In fact, what is a "rich" person? Is it someone making over $250,000 like the Obama administration seems to think? If so, I gaurantee this number will be coming down SOON!!

I know one thing for certain, and that is the number of rich people are declining. However, this will not lead to a utopia, it will only strengthen and solidify those who hold power and are rich. What you end up doing is reducing the number of challengers to those in power and allow the gap between those in power and those under their power to widen. It reminds me of the dynasties in China where the entire populace was dirt poor but the emporer lived in paradise. I heard a story of a "commoner" sneaking into the city to kill the emporer, however, he was caught. The emporer then asked him why he had done such a thing since he knew that doing this was punishable by death. He responded, either way I suffer but at least this way I am not forgotten. I fear we are headed down the same road with our leaders. Just look at Obama trying to appoint people to his cabnet. None of them pay their taxes any more. Heck, the head of the IRS is included in the mix and Obama knew it and appointed him anyway. What's up with that? There is no accountability anymore and no job creation unless you want to work for the government. I much prefer the wealth to be distributed amongst the populace, thus, reducing government control over them.

Originally posted by whodey
If you look at the original ten commandments, the odd part about them is that there are no penalties for violating them once they were given. The penalties came later under Mosaic law.

Just for the sake of argument. lets say there was no Mosaic law to act punitively towards those who violated the ten commandments. Harm would eventually catch up to them v ...[text shortened]... f government that we never agreed to in the first place. In this respect, free will was upheld.

If you look at the original ten commandments, the odd part about them is that there are no penalties for violating them once they were given. The penalties came later under Mosaic law.

My point, though (which you've helped establish by delineating God's manner of punishment for the Israelite's sins), is that God's rule could not be considered libertarian at all. Blasphemy would be something allowed in a libertarian society, as would sabbath breaking, necromancy, false prophecy, worshiping Baal, losing one's virginity before marriage, adultery, etc., yet these were all capital crimes under God's rule. What I reject is the notion that God's rule is essentially libertarianism. What libertarianism is is a form of rule which is as far removed from God's rule as any other form of government.

EDIT: Simply reverting to little or no government does not a utopia make, nor does it bring us any closer to having God as our King.

In short, they were instructed by Moses the conditions to the covenant and they all agreed. This is a far cry from those of us drug by our ear into a system of government that we never agreed to in the first place. In this respect, free will was upheld.

But their children didn't choose to enter into a covenant with God, yet they were still bound by it. Similarly, we didn't choose to be born Americans, and had no part in the development of our democracy, yet we are bound by it. Your argument may work for the first generation of those who entered into a covenant with God, but not the succeeding generations. They, too, could be said to have been drug by the ear into a system of government they never agreed to.

Originally posted by whodey
The policies of progressives are not sustainable epi. Just look around. Look at the finacial state of Greece, and Spain and the US etc.

We both know the end game don't we. Just look at Revelation and tell me how this liberal dogma leads us to our utopia.

The policies of progressives are not sustainable epi. Just look around. Look at the finacial state of Greece, and Spain and the US etc.

The current crisis is proof that the policies of conservatives, e.g., deregulation and deficit spending, are not sustainable. There's nothing wrong with domestic spending as long as it's regulated and paid for.

We both know the end game don't we. Just look at Revelation and tell me how this liberal dogma leads us to our utopia.

I don't know the end game for sure; it's difficult to know exactly what is being described in Revelation. What is clear, though, is that neither conservative nor liberal dogma are referred to therein. If you're insinuating that governmental policies are in vain because the end is nigh, I would ask: when haven't the end time been nigh? Should I stop going to work and spending money on my child's education simply because the end is nigh? Listen, I'm not an uber-liberal or anything, I have certain conservative leanings on some issues, what I reject is the notion that all policy is bad policy. That just doesn't make any logical sense. There has to be good policy, too.

Originally posted by whodey
You seem to be in favor of allowing people to smoke pot and film porn in their basements and allow abortions but draw the line when it comes to greedy rich people not helping the poor. Why? Why are you in favor of legislating morality only when it comes to the "rich"? In fact, what is a "rich" person? Is it someone making over $250,000 like the Obama admi ...[text shortened]... alth to be distributed amongst the populace, thus, reducing government control over them.

The number of rich people have declined because the middle class has been decimated by Reagan era policies. Trickle down economics didn't quite work as expected (or maybe it did). The rich got richer (and fewer) and the poor got poorer.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
EDIT: Simply reverting to little or no government does not a utopia make, nor does it bring us any closer to having God as our King.

[

I agree. In fact, without God at the helm a utopia is but a dream. That's what bothers me about statists, they don't see that. My main beef is that man was not made to rule over other men. In fact, the more power mankind has over his fellow man, the more nervous we should all become. When they do, abuses will ultimately not be far behind.

Originally posted by epiphinehas

The current crisis is proof that the policies of conservatives, e.g., deregulation and deficit spending, are not sustainable. There's nothing wrong with domestic spending as long as it's regulated and paid for.

But the government helped create the current economic crisis. The government came in and forced lenders to lend to high risk individuals via the CRA act in the name of helping the poor. The US government also created Fannie and Freddie who were a vital component to the whole mess despite being over seen by Barney Frank and company who kept singing their praises all the way to insolvency. To put the blame soley on conservatives is just outrageous.

As for domestic spending being regulated and paid for, its not. Entitlements don't take into account the fact that you may not have the money to pay out. In fact, for the first time social security is paying out more than it takes in. The Dems have no problem with this. In fact, had the government not taken excess money out of social security and left IOU's in its place we would not be having this problem now. However, Dems have no problem with this either. That is the dirty little secret about entitlements. It adds to the governments power and wealth. That's why you never hear those in government talk about reform. They have no interest in it, rather, they only demand more of your tax money to "fix" problems. In fact, medicare fraud consumes about a $100 billion a year of tax payer money yet Obamacare hardly addresses it. The main focus is universal coverage and expanding the system and increasing our taxes. To drive home the point, I once heard that out of all the tax money collected to go to welfare, only 9 cents on the dollar actually goes to those in need, the rest is government overhead. That is why neither party wants reform in these areas. Its because both parties are getting the wheels greesed so why seek change?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[I don't know the end game for sure; it's difficult to know exactly what is being described in Revelation. What is clear, though, is that neither conservative nor liberal dogma are referred to therein. If you're insinuating that governmental policies are in vain because the end is nigh, I would ask: when haven't the end time been nigh? Should I stop goin ...[text shortened]... bad policy. That just doesn't make any logical sense. There has to be good policy, too.[/b]

I am not talking about liberals or conservatives, I'm talking about statism. What I observe are statist moving towards collectivism. I think nationalism began this movement. Nationalism was used at one point to empower centralized governments in the nations around the world. It helped fracture the notion of limited government in the US as well as federalism. Now we see the President of the United States have a say in every aspect of your life ranging from how your teenager is educated in school to what doctor they see. In fact, an entire fourth branch of the federal government has been created consuming trillions of dollars anually and making decisions for us even though they are not even elected. They are only answerable to the President. The engine for this was the creation of the federal income tax at the turn of the 20th century. However, the movement I now see is the movement to down play nationalism. Now that the worlds government have been centralized for the most part, the movement seems to be to unite these centralized governments. An example is the EU. Just create one currency for all these countries and try to treat them as part of the same "state".

Of course, those who favor this type of thinking may do so in order to avoid such unpleasant problems such as wars between nations. After all, once these countries become so intertwined attacking each other would be akin to attacking themselves. This is all well and good so long as this form of one world government is "good". Suppose for a second that it goes bad. For example, if a nazi like regime was in charge of a one world system, who would fight them off? What nation would rise to overthrow them? Although war is a terrible thing, it is a form of a check and balance. There is a cathartic element to conquering "evil" regimes and I think that the "beast" mentioned in Revelation is one such evil world wide regime.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The number of rich people have declined because the middle class has been decimated by Reagan era policies. Trickle down economics didn't quite work as expected (or maybe it did). The rich got richer (and fewer) and the poor got poorer.

We will see just how much the middle class expands under Obama. I call it trickle down taxation. He rails about taxing corporations as if he is punishing them but all they do is then pass down the taxes to the average joe. Joe Shmoe tax payers pays for everything and everyone whether it be the wealthy in government who don't pay their taxes or the wealthy on Wall Street who need bail outs sponsered by government. Of course, if the US continues this redistribution of wealth, the middle class will disappear altogether. How could it not? Then what will be left are the "peasants" and the elite in governemnt who rule over us like we saw in the former USSR. This is what world history shows is the norm. The middle class is but a fluke in history. But then, I suppose those on the left can then feel better knowing that there are less evil "rich" people in the world with the continued policy of redistribution of wealth. I say that both parties have contributed to this phenomenon, only, we have people choosing a side and blindly defending that side to the death when they really are in bed together.