Posts Tagged ‘You shall not steal’

Christ was not Communist, or a Crony Capitalist Either, BUT…

December 8, 2013

This is a shout-out to
http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2013/10/christ-was-not-communistbut-he-wasnt.html

…which the author says is an answer to:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/07/christ-was-not-a-communist/

The truth is, they both seem to be wrong. The “Orthodoxy Today” seems reluctant to take the Biblical truths that they do glimpse to its proper conclusions. The “answer to it” also misses the logical conclusions from scripture.

I’ll say right out what they both miss are the implications of two principles, also enshrined in the Ten Commandments, and expanded by Jesus Christ himself. For the purposes of addressing government-enforced redistribution, take your pick: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and the Golden Rule, often paraphrased as Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The confusion for most people today stems from a strong “tradition of men” that in their minds has confused their thinking. Confused mine in times past.

What confuses them is automatically thinking of government as an inescapable necessity, without actually thinking very much about the premise itself.

you cannot reform the physical, absent fear, without reforming the spiritual. [sic]

That’s true but is a dance around the issue. Granted it is a dance begun by the orthodoxytoday essay, but there is also truth that the difference between “spirit” and “flesh” is a Biblical one.

There are precedents for a certain amount of govt. intervention and
controls and the charity of the OT was MANDATORY, the third year
tithe went to the poor, the edges of croplands were not to be harvested
but left for the poor, ditto going over one’s fruit trees more than once,
and the tither on the third year was required to make an accounting to
the elders and public to be sure he had in fact done this.

Yes, this is true, but please note the important part that relates to the role of any government in this picture. The “charity” of the Old Testament was mandatory, a commandment to the lawful believers. I like to mention this as an example of the many things in the actual laws of Moses that show that it was very much favorable to the poor, the innocent, the unfairly accused, and so on.

The description there of the “third-year accounting” is a bit more than is in the passages. I have read through the whole Torah, but don’t have it memorized and had to search for the “third year” passage. It is there, but the “‘accounting” is to GOD HIMSELF, not an earthly governmental intermediary, not even the priests, although I will grant that the whole chapter might lend itself to such an interpretation, though “thus saith the Bible” is too strong for it. But this is a quibble next to the important point here.

Those with lands and harvests were indeed commanded to leave some behind, enough for the poor that would come and pick it up behind them.

Punishment to enforce? risk of loss of God‘s protection and famine,
disease and foreign invasion as a result.

Yes, that’s right, but again, God did not order some earthly group to carry this out. In fact, David said his enemies were “God’s sword”, because they were used by God to carry out his judgments.

In fact, today in current events we see God using the enemies of the body of Christ, and the enemies of those who invoke his name (not always the same people), using them to enforce judgments against his house. “Judgment must begin in the house of God:” (1 Peter 4:17).

Now, another question is, just what DOES help the poor? Sure, there
is an issue of proper use of funds by govt. but the same is true of
private charitable organizations. Discernment is necessary. But if
everyone on food stamps or SSI suddenly had to depend on churches
and Salvation Army, you can count on it those systems would go
bankrupt.

No you can NOT “count on it those systems would go bankrupt”. You have no way of knowing that, you cannot say that with any certainty except for the indoctrination we’ve been subjected to in the recent generations of the rise of the welfare state.

In fact, history needs a revision to counter the revision we’ve been taught. Editors revise manuscripts to make them better, and history books need editors that know their facts better in some cases, and are more intellectually honest in other cases, and in more instances, editors and writers that are just not so lazy.

The abuses of child labor in the 18th century, for example, that we learned about, were actually the ones mostly committed by government child centers.

And the real problem when you look closely, is not so much big govt., as big business that OWNS the govt. and runs it.)

But the problem when business “owns” the government is the fact that a government uses force, using the threat of confiscations and prison against its victims. If a government official sells the services of such force, then I see there are two problems that have nothing to do with what the business does, and another problem with what the business does. That’s three.

One, the government official is selling the service of force against others. If force is not involved, the business would have no need for government intervention. That means legislators too.

Two, the fact that a government can force its subjects to obey under penalty of several means of coercion.

Three, the business pays for these coercions, with the exception of the tit-for-tat type corruption that government officials or politicians threaten, so as to extort “campaign contributions”. This is known as “rent-seeking”. It is a way to benefit from the monopoly of force inflicted upon the rest of us through the use of force.

In fact, I have read cases studies of legislators proposing legislation that will reduce revenues for a particular company or industry, then “campaign contributions” are made to those legislators and they get visits by the lobbyists and the legislation goes away.

Bill Gates and Microsoft gave almost nothing to political campaigns before the anti-trust trials, for example, but were very generous afterward…

Another problem is the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall

That was a favor to certain interests, for sure.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

The problem with the welfare state, the problem with any government giving anything at all to anybody, is that for a government to give anything, it has to rob it from somebody else.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

Christians that follow Christ truly do have an obligation to help the poor. In fact, everyone should. But you cannot saying you are helping the poor if you rob your neighbor to help another neighbor. You are just making yourself feel better.

The same thing applies whether you get a Mafia boss to do it, Theft Incorporated, or your local mayor or governor or president. It does not matter if you get a mob of 51% of the population in your area to vote for somebody to hire armed men to rob some of the people so as to give other people the proceeds.

Even if you vote for yourself to be among the “victims”, it does no good, because you are an accessory to the theft where the victims are the unwilling “donors” who are not donors but victims of theft now.

At this point many readers coming across this as a new concept are getting mental protests that government is necessary for lots of things. I thought so too at first, but it is a discussion to have.

BIBLICALLY

There was mention of the laws of Moses and mandates for the poor. Note that when the people of Israel asked for a real government, though, God told Samuel that they had rejected God, not Samuel.

1 Samuel 8:6 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.

Now we all are taught in Sunday School or by preachers that Jesus said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”, when he was asked about taxes by the Pharisees and Sadducees that sought to trick him into condemning himself or making himself unpopular.

But let us see what Jesus really thought about anybody who imposed any taxes on anybody

Matthew 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

The kings of the earth (those who tell the rest of us to pay taxes) do not pay those taxes themselves, and do not impose them on their own children, but on “strangers”.

And don’t forget what he did to the people that controlled the currency exchanges of the day, and their false balances. Imagine what he would to to the Fed:

John 2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

Imagine what he will eventually do upon his return to those “kings” that have robbed the poor and middle class with their fiat currency and money devaluation, and the false balance of a fiat currency, and through their devious legislation passed with a false balance (lies) of saying it’s for the poor but are not.

Better they leave us alone. Government is just a bigger Mafia than the rest of them. Sometimes it’s a kinder, gentler Mafia but whenever they tell you they want to help you, reach for your pocketbook. (And whatever you have to defend yourself with).

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Advertisement

The Natural Family and “77 Non-Religious Reasons”

April 6, 2013

Do Cochran’s blog inspired a reaction:
http://gregoryccochran.com/2013/01/04/77-non-religious-reasons-to-support-traditional-marriage/

His blog was a reaction to the Ruth Institute’s list of “77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage”:

One of the loudest advocates of same-sex marriage claims discrimination based on, so he says, 10,000 specific benefits that man-woman marriages get. Usually unspoken is the fact that those are *government-granted* “benefits. Why should *any* of us think government should give us permission to get married or to warp the land of marriage culture with it?

Marriage was always considered, including in pagan societies throughout history, as part of a natural family.

Same-sex marriage advocates always come back with this bogus “what is a family” anymore, and point at “non-traditional” families like mixed marriages (step-children all around, all that) as if the Ozzie and Harriet “ideal” is dead. That was even a Hillary Clinton reference circa 1992! But it’s not dead, she and other opponents of the NATURAL FAMILY, they just want to kill it.

Remind them that the supposedly new “non-traditional” families that *seem* successful are the ones that best emulate the *natural* family. Their own studies even show that the best adjusted kids are those that grew up in natural families, with a father and a mother. The worst thing that happened to especially the poor in America (not just black families) was the breakup of so many families.

It was in the Karl MarxCommunist Manifesto” after all. The main purpose behind this same-sex marriage noise is to push the idea that the children of any natural marriage belong to the state. The Powers That Be that have pushed almost the entire platform of the Communist Manifesto down our throats little by little and largely unnoticed, they HATE the natural family because it interferes with their indoctrination of the little ones.

Hillary Clinton once wrote a paper in college that denounced marriage as slavery. Some sharp reporter ought to ask her if she still believes that. (She’ll have to “kind of” renounce it, wink wink). I was a Communist youth myself, but facts, logic, truth have dragged me to where I am now. Marxists might call it slavery on a bad day, but they see no slavery in the fact that we are *forced* to labor for whoever commands the government du jour, for more than a third of our year, for them to decide who gets to have what.

So they are using the fact that Christians and others accepted the state taking over control of marriage as quite the Trojan Horse to try a Newspeak Dictionary tactic of making people forget the purpose of natural marriage, which has always been rearing children with the natural protection of the natural nuclear family of man, woman, and offspring.

Getting government back out of the business of controlling our lives by controlling marriage, and other collectivist ideas, is not an easy path, since state recognition has become in our minds apparently the definition of “legitimacy”.

Where Christian leaders have erred greatly was in using, or accepting, government license (control) over our lives in the first place. Mandating alcohol abstinence did not work at all, and other enforcement by the force of the gun of the law of religious doctrines will not work, other than for the protection of natural rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and yes, property (Thou shalt not steal).