Printable version
 Email to a friend

arrow_left_short all forums
topic list

Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion

Replies: (page   1   2   3)
Lost Sheep 11/13/2012 21:16
Oh and I agree with what you said about WW2 being caused by WW1. I dont know enough about WW1 to really even know what Americas involvement was. I do know that had action been taken against Germany sooner, life would have been better for the world and even Germany too.
Tate 11/22/2012 01:46
I sincerely want to thank you, Lost Sheep, for making the effort to create a dialogue with me. I appreciate it very much.

You are correct in saying that the US is a world power. The reason it became economically powerful was due to its relatively laissez-faire economic policies in the 19th century that led to greater capital investment and increases in productive capacity. A problem with this, however, is that the government then has more it can expropriate from the citizens. This greater wealth allowed the US government to be able to afford to become more interventionist in foreign policy, eventually becoming the gargantuan machine that has bases in over 150 countries today. Maintaining such an empire inevitably leads to the dissolution of that empire due to overspending and debt, which is where I see the US to be headed.

I would like to think, rather, that a nation can be a world power in terms of its economic productivity and the benefits it brings to the rest of the world through trade. Indeed, there seems to be a high correlation between countries being trade partners and those same countries being at peace with another. As Frederic Bastiat stated, ""When goods don't cross borders, armies will." In other words, it is trade and the division of labor which make us all wealthy; unnecessary military expenditures cause us to be less wealthy. Must a world power try to police the world? Or can it refuse to make conflicts larger and more costly and choose not to be involved in the affairs of others?

I would agree with the contention that most Christians tend to vote Republican due to the perception that they are more conservative (though it may take a while to define what that actually means to different people). Being pro-life is commonly considered a trait of conservatism, but Republicans have been disappointing in this matter (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/56709.html). It is too bad that there haven't been enough Christians calling them out on this. For that matter, I think that Christians should be the ones holding politicians' feet to the fire and refusing to support anyone who is fundamentally opposed to our values. It unfortunately seems that the Republicans are the ones in the driver's seat in this relationship, being able to count on Christian support regardless of substantive policy. Regrettably, the Democrats are no better. But if Christians refused to support either one (the lesser of two evils is still evil) and instead demanded a more just government, I think we would be closer to that goal instead of just voting for whomever has an "R" behind his or her name.

As well, you are right in saying that a nation (which is a collection of individuals who share some type of common cultural bond) has a right to self-defense. For "national interests" though, it depends. I don't think that, to use an actual historical example, if an American fruit company doing business in Latin America is nationalized that US taxpayers should pay for the US military to rectify the situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#History_in_Central_America). Sovereign risk is something that investors bear; taxpayers should not have to bail them out.

And again, as stated above, I don't believe most American Christians love war, but I find it quite serious that they are quite willing to support politicians that pursue belligerent foreign policies. The overwhelming majority of US military action abroad has not been in defense of Americans. Even if there are some wars that are justified, such as The War for American Independence, it doesn't change the fact that we ought to be very wary of the warfare state.

Thank you for noticing my passion about this topic. It is so important in itself, as well as for all of the things it affects. For example, if one looks at the size of the US government throughout history, one sees that its greatest expansions come during times of war. There is a "ratchet effect" of government power growing during a war but never quite shrinking back down to pre-war levels. Also, freedoms are lost during wartime. We have measures like the USA PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, and regular violations of the Constitution at airports; all use war as an excuse. Wars are also typically financed overwhelmingly by debt, inflation, or a combination of the two. Hence, war is a proximate cause of innocents being forced to pay higher taxes and have to shell out more money to pay for necessities. One need not be a hippie to see the benefits of having an economy that is based on "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" (to borrow a phrase from Jefferson).

Being that I find entangling alliances to be harmful to Americans, I am against them. The alliance with the state of Israel would seem to be an example of this. But yet again we encounter problems stemming from intervention by Western powers. The just owners of what is now geographically Israel is not clear, but removing Palestinians from their living quarters is sure to make them angry. I don't think the US's current relationship with Israel is beneficial to either party. Importantly, I think there is a distinction between the actual Nation of Israel that God created and the lines on the map marked "Israel" that were drawn by the United Nations. Voluntary support of the state of Israel is always an option, perhaps by joining its army or sending one's own money. But this is morally different than forcing others by way of taxation to fund a state they would rather not support.

And surely, let us pray. Though personally, I refuse to call anyone in control of the State apparatus a "leader," unless in the sense of his or her criminality. It used to be the case that the US President had almost no role, if any, in the everyday lives of Americans. Now there seems to be nothing too insignificant for him to involve himself. This isn't a leader; it is a busybody who murders people with predator drones.

My reading of different materials has totally revolutionized my thinking about WWII. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance181.html
Lost Sheep 11/26/2012 22:55
While I do agree with most of what you said, I think America’s dominance in international affairs is starting to wane. I worked on American Army bases in Germany for the past 23 years and I was recently transferred back to America as all of those bases are closing.
I also agree that our military efforts have crippled our already bad economy. Honestly I think as a nation we are beyond repair as I feel we have worked ourselves out of most labor type jobs to compete in a global market, as American labor is far higher than the rest of the world and with the emerging markets of India and China we are certainly going to fall further behind. I also think the nations infrastructure (roads, bridges ect…) is broken as well.
I also believe that the so called “Christian Coalition” is losing any sway over the political world. Christians are slowly losing their grip on this country as America seems to be headed towards more of the Atheist views. We live in a country were in order to be PC we have to embrace everyone’s beliefs but that is hardly the teaching of the bible. The Holy Bible says “Thou Shalt not” while the satanic bible says “do what thou will shall be the whole of the law”. This seems to be the philosophy of most Americans. I know this it off topic but I guess it somewhat applies as I honestly see American Christianity and America itself becoming irrelevant to the rest of the world. We seem to be headed down the same dark cold road that Rome took many years ago.
As far as Israel goes, my thought’s is that we need to remain an ally. I still believe that God’s blessing is on His chosen people and I think the Bible clearly lays out what land is theirs and I think the simple fact that Israel as a nation exist is proof of that. Honestly if you look at that region its make no sense what so ever for Israel to be there in the middle of people that hate them but yet they are there.

Tate 12/28/2012 16:00
The economic decline of the US is all but an assured fact; the US government is already over whatever cliff and the only question is where it will land. Unless the Federal Reserve changes its course, it will inflate the dollar into worthlessness. And so what I'm concerned about is a repeat of the Weimar Republic, where people facing hyperinflation and economic hardship put their hope and trust into Hitler. Many Americans have seemed more than willing to trade their liberties for security and are easily sold into whatever war the State wants to enter. Yet I believe an American church that is vocal enough and dedicated to not fighting any war which is not about defending Americans can keep such atrocities from happening and, more immediately, stop all the atrocities that are currently happening at the hands of the US military overseas.

And you're right about the so-called "Christian coalition." They seem to be without any particular principles.

In terms of consequences, I think anyone who wants to see Israel succeed would not support current US policy. They have an economy that desperately needs free market reforms (as does the US) but are able to put off that because of US subsidies. The US demands that Israel seek US approval for many of their decisions, thereby undermining their sovereignty. Hence, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the US is actually helping Israel, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

I will have to admit my ignorance of where in the Bible it is laid out what land is "Israel." Could you please point it out and whether it fits with what the UN drew on the map?
Calico 01/21/2013 05:08
Ah yes, back to dispensationalism...
Calico 01/21/2013 05:11
"American Christianity...?" Frank, if I may ask, what do you mean by such terminology?
Tate 01/21/2013 19:16
Calico, thanks for the bump.

If I may alter the question to something less extreme (and which may create a greater discussion) is, Why aren't American Christians more concerned about current American foreign policy? This doesn't require a wholesale philosophical anti-war stance; I think a rejection of imperialistic foreign policy is something all good people should embrace.

What has concerned me, however, is what I've heard from most Christians with whom I associate. Personally, I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul; I think he has an overall philosophy that is the most consistent with freedom and peace out of any major politician. But some Christians who I talked to said that he is pretty good...except for foreign policy.

I would appreciate if someone could kindly explain this to me. For one particularly lady it was the Israel issue (though as I explained in my previous post that I believe US intervention makes Israel worse off). Is this how it is for most? I am counting on the DAB family to help me understand.
Calico 01/21/2013 19:28
Heya Tate, good to have you here with DAB,

Just dropping this off, then heading for work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CS3Y8i-iY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Tate 01/21/2013 20:03
Thank you for the video.

As time goes on, I become more convinced that Romans 13 DOES NOT refer to the State. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Take this excerpt from Gerard Casey:

"Whereas the standard English interpretation uses the word ‘governing’ in verse 1, the Greek text does not. It reads: ‘Let every soul be subject to the superior powers.’ Who or what are these superior powers? It is assumed by many commentators that in this passage St Paul was referring to the secular authorities. But why should we make this assumption? Let us place this passage in context. In the previous chapter of Romans, St Paul had just written “Do not be conformed to the world…” (Romans 12: 2); why should we think that he would almost immediately contradict himself and counsel conformity to the world? The bulk of chapter 12, and the verses of chapter 13 that occur immediately after the passage just cited, concern themselves with what is required of the Christian in living a Christian life, of the mutual duties and responsibilities among Christians. There is nothing explicit in these two chapters to support the claim that St Paul has switched his focus in the early verses of chapter 13 to discuss the Christian's relationship to civil government. In fact, the context seems to support the contrary: St Paul is dealing with spiritual authority within the Body of Christ and the individual members' relationship to that authority. The apostle tells us to submit to the higher powers, then he quotes the law of the higher powers, the love of neighbour of which the particular commandments are only particular exemplifications. What St Paul is talking about here is the Law of God – what has this got to do with the dictates of the secular authorities? We might wonder why should St Paul suddenly switch to a completely different topic, and then back again to what he was speaking of in chapter 12? It would seem much less interpretatively arbitrary to take it that St Paul is exhorting those to whom he wrote this letter to be obedient to their authorities. Why would St Paul encourage the Roman Christians to obey the secular authority that was persecuting the Church!" (the full article can be found at http://lewrockwell.com/orig10/casey-g3.1.1.html)

The State is fully based on initiated coercion, by definition. The mega-murderers throughout history have been agents of the State. Therefore, it is very difficult for me to believe that they are sanctioned by God.

I do accept the fact that God is beyond human understanding, but how He could possibly approve of the actions of the State, are beyond me.

(If it is not clear, I am a voluntarist. I believe it to be the only political philosophy consistent with Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism)
Lost Sheep 02/02/2013 23:16
Calico, Sorry havent been on much to reply to you. I am sure if I went into my thoughts I would offend a great mass of people, but I will say that what I meant by American Christianity is Western Christianity. I believe that it is much different than say in India or Africa, as far as living by faith ect...
(page   1   2   3)
arrow_up_short start of topic