Libertarianism and

[apothanein kerdos]

Again, aren

[Marnie]

And I'm not saying you're a Satanist. What I am saying is that Libertarianism and LeVay's Satanism are the exact same thing...both place the emphasis on the individual and what the individual wants, free of consequence.

As I stated, I don't advocate Rand's libertarianism. Although, you are right. I do believe in the good of the individual, with responsibility.

[apothanein kerdos]

And I'm not saying you're a Satanist. What I am saying is that Libertarianism and LeVay's Satanism are the exact same thing...both place the emphasis on the individual and what the individual wants, free of consequence.

As I stated, I don't advocate Rand's libertarianism. Although, you are right. I do believe in the good of the individual, with responsibility.

Again, believing in the good of the individual is not compatable with Christianity. We're called to a community of believers...in other words, you should believe in the good for the glory of God...and then whatever falls after that.

[apothanein kerdos]

I think some of this rhetoric is getting out of hand. I am not a libertarian, as I have already stated, but to compare libertarians to satanists seems a stretch.

They stem from the same philosophy (almost the same man). Both rely on individualism...it would be the same as saying absolute socialism and Communism are the same thing in that both rely on the destruction of the individual for the good of the community. When I say "Satanism" I am not refering to the worship of Satan but instead to LaVey's Satanism, which is based upon the individual.

I would agree with you AK in that the Bible doesn't forbid the government to impose any level of taxation. At the same time, it doesn't force a government to impose any taxation. With that in mind, it is perfectly fine from a Biblical standpoint for you to want high taxes and that I want low taxes. My opposition to taxes is not for Biblical reasons. I just don't like high taxes. I also don't like the way the government misuses tax money, income they don't earn, yet are happy to give away to anyone they see fit.

It's a strech to say they don't earn our income. They provide safety from enemies, pay for our police, firefighters, hospitals, sewers, etc. I'd say they've earned a bit of their keep

If it were up to me the government would operate on a shoe string budget. There would be no income taxes, and they would get by on a small national sales tax. The government would only collect taxes for absolute necessities and would do away with all welfare programs. Your opinion in this matter is valid, I just don't agree with it.

The problem is by doing away with welfare programs, they begin to violate some very biblical principles. That's not an opinion; that's a scriptural fact.

You are right about the government in the Old Testament having a responsibility to the poor, however if the church would operate as God intended and open up their hearts to the poor and needy through tithes, offerings, and giving of alms, the poor would be taken care of. Taking the government out of the equation would likely benefit the poor in the long run, because with more disposable income in the pocket of the church, charitable giving should greatly increase.

This is easily disproven. Again, look to 1870-1940. During this period there was less taxation but more poverty. The church never partook in helping the poor. Even if it did, this does not aliviate the government from its duty to help the poor. That is what God calls for in scripture...even if every CHristian does his or her job in helping the poor, the government would [i[still have to help.

[apothanein kerdos]

However, Communism is not driven by materialism and consumerism...instead it is driven by utopian ideas that deny the fallen nature of man. It is just as bad, but different.

Really? When you study communism as practiced in the real world, i.e., USSR, Communist China, etc., were those regimes driven by

[apothanein kerdos]

By comparing libertarianism to satanism, you are basically demonizing Marnie. I understand your comparison, though I still think it is extreme, but I find it no different that than when people compare someone's beliefs to a group like the Mormons or Catholics, just because they hold some common characteristics. The Mormons are very pro-life and I am too, so to demonize me an anti-life person could say my position is like the Mormons. We may agree on that issue, but will disagree in other areas.

I'm not comparing abstracts or side items. I am comparing the core philosophy of the issue. LaVey's Satanism and basic Libertarianism do not share certain philosophies or actions; both of their core philosophies are exactly the same. Let's put this in a practical way:

Let's say I want to compare a motorcycle and a Honda Accord Sedan. I could compare the two saying they both have an engine, they both rely on rubber for their tires, and both need gas. There are other similarities, but overall, they are still two different machines. This would be say, Christianity and Mormonism. However, comparing Satanism (LaVey) and Libertarianism is like comparing a Honda Accord LX and Honda Accord VX...there are only a few differences but still the same machine. You can say I'm trying to demonize someone all you want, the fact remainds, the core philosophies are EXACTLY the same. Both look to the individual and individual freedoms so long as it doesn't harm others. They are the exact same core philosophies.

And it is just those areas I agree with the necessity for a small amount of taxation.

To pay for a military, police force, sanitation, federal disaster aid, etc requires billions upon billions upon billions of dollars...this is no small taxation.

I am not going to entirely disagree with you, since the Old Testament did make the Israeli government responsible to look after the poor, however there were many other principles given under the kingdom rule set up by God that must also be followed to make such a system work. I have said in the past, if you or anyone else is proposing a return to an Old Testament style theocrocy based on the law of Moses, I am all for it, but from what I have seen, you don't wish to go that far.

This is a second problem people make when they approach what i'm saying. I am not refering to Mosaic law, I am refering to Biblical principles. Solmon was refering to rulers in general, not to Israeli rulers. There is a HUGE difference. Your point holds absolutely no weight at this point because it ignores that simple fact; i am not refering to mosaic law. Here is something people need to remember: THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NOT MOSAIC LAW! When I refer to Proverbs, Solomon is specifically stating that it is leaders, it is kings, NOT the kings of Israel or Judah. He WAS the king...how could he refer to someone that is not there?

Well then how about this A.K.? How about the government doing away with all welfare programs, but giving huge tax breaks for individual giving to the charities of their choice, meaningful tax breaks. At least then, we wouldn't be having our money given to things we are in opposition to.

No, I still disagree. The government providing a base means of health care, or helping the poor by giving them money, tax benefits, or programs to help them get out of their situation is a more biblical method to go. The simple fact is, if you let people keep their money, they'll spend it on themselves. It is the way of human nature. I'd rather the government take 5%....

[apothanein kerdos]

Alright AK

I can see we will just have to disagree on this matter. However the one thing I did want to take a shot at is what you said about Solomon. The entire nation of Israel based their entire system of laws on the law of Moses. The fact Solomon was even king is because God set up David as king and Solomon inherited the throne. All Solomon knew about how to run a government was from the law of Moses, so to say you can separate the two when refering to Old Testament Israel makes no sense. Where did Solomon come up with his "rules in general?" They are based on the law of Moses.

I can say that it is Biblical to kill all idolaters, homosexuals, witches, etc. to put sin out of our land, and return America back to faith in God. There is actually wisdom in doing just that, since we see from the Old Testament example what such wicked people do to a society.

I doubt you will accept that answer, but that is how I see it.

You're trying to make a straw-man argument. If you can prove Solomon meant "Mosaic law" then you have a case, and no longer have to support government welfare. The problem is, at the point David was made king, Mosaic law lost its value. How so? Mosaic law was written under the assumption that there would be judges and prophets to run the land, not kings. Likewise, Solomon specifically says "ruler." This applies to ALL RULERS. You cannot ignore that fact. The book of Proverbs was not written for Mosaic law but instead is a book of wisdom for all people. Solomon wrote this not just for the Jews, but for everyone. There is no escaping this fact, unless of course you want to make a strawman argument to get out of the facts.

Bottom line, the government is to help out with the poor.

[Marnie]

Well, I have to say I have enjoyed reading your posts. I have half of you convinced I am Satan worshipper, and the other half convinced I am a money grubbing hedonist. It has been fascinating to watch Conan Doyle's hypothesis being proven before my eyes. Conan Doyle asserted that you can write almost anything but that the person reading it will see only what they believe you have written. If you had read my original post, nowhere did I say was a Libertarian, only that libertarianism has some merits to it. Subsequent posts picked up what had been said about what I written, not necessarily what I had written.

Oh well, be that as it may, I love you all dearly and will continue to aggrivate AK as long as he responds, but I will think twice about posting a deeply personal prayer request; I just am not so sure how closely you read what is being written.

[apothanein kerdos]

AK

[apothanein kerdos]

Alright AK

I can see we will just have to disagree on this matter. However the one thing I did want to take a shot at is what you said about Solomon. The entire nation of Israel based their entire system of laws on the law of Moses. The fact Solomon was even king is because God set up David as king and Solomon inherited the throne. All Solomon knew about how to run a government was from the law of Moses, so to say you can separate the two when refering to Old Testament Israel makes no sense. Where did Solomon come up with his "rules in general?" They are based on the law of Moses.

I can say that it is Biblical to kill all idolaters, homosexuals, witches, etc. to put sin out of our land, and return America back to faith in God. There is actually wisdom in doing just that, since we see from the Old Testament example what such wicked people do to a society.

I doubt you will accept that answer, but that is how I see it.

You're trying to make a straw-man argument. If you can prove Solomon meant "Mosaic law" then you have a case, and no longer have to support government welfare. The problem is, at the point David was made king, Mosaic law lost its value. How so? Mosaic law was written under the assumption that there would be judges and prophets to run the land, not kings. Likewise, Solomon specifically says "ruler." This applies to ALL RULERS. You cannot ignore that fact. The book of Proverbs was not written for Mosaic law but instead is a book of wisdom for all people. Solomon wrote this not just for the Jews, but for everyone. There is no escaping this fact, unless of course you want to make a strawman argument to get out of the facts.

Bottom line, the government is to help out with the poor.

To me, I am not making a straw man argument. The very fact Israel had a king was because God set up a kingdom. The law even makes provision for rules of conduct for a king. From the law of Moses, Deuteronomy 17:14-20

14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me:

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose. One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: for as much as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: netiher shall he greatly multily to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be when he sitteth upon the Throne of his kngdom, THAT HE SHALL WRITE HIM A COPY OF THIS LAW IN A BOOK, OUT OF THAT WHICH IS BEFORE THE PRIESTS THE LEVITES.

19 IT SHALL BE WITH HIM, AND HE SHALL READ THEREIN ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE, THAT HE MAY LEARN TO FEAR THE LORD HIS GOD, TO KEEP ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW, AND THESE STATUTES, TO DO THEM;

20 THAT HIS HEART BE NOT LIFTED UP ABOVE HIS BRETHREN, AND THAT HE TURN NOT ASIDE FROM THE COMMANDMENT, TO THE RIGHT HAND, OR TO THE LEFT: TO THE END THAT HE MAY PROLONG HIS DAYS IN HIS KINGDOM, HE, AND HIS CHILDREN IN THE MIDST OF ISRAEL."

You stated that at the time David became king, Mosaic law lost it's value. These scriptures, directly out of the law of Moses proves that to be incorrect. The law was set up with God's full knowledge Israel would become a kingdom.

You also said the law was written under the assumption the land would be run by judges and prophets. These verses again prove you wrong. It was set up to be run by judges, and kings. Israel and or Judah was blessed as they followed the law of Moses and came under curses as they disobeyed. This is not a straw argument. It is a fact.

The strawman comes into play when you try to equate Solomon's advice to Mosaic law. You missed that point.