Official announcement: Due to the heavy volume of letters, along with a few other things going on around here, more letters than normal will not make it in this week. Sorry about that. Hopefully things will be closer to normal next week, unless of course we are all too busy fighting off the various indecencies being perpetrated by the party of decency in the aftermath of the election.
Show Outline with LinksMy Poor Truck
Did you really burn your old truck? If so, what a way for a truck to go. Quite the honor and way better than a junkyard.
Andrew
Andrew, yes, we really burnt it. But I drove that truck for 17 years, had already done a lot of repairs on it over the years, and then the steering column went out, and it was beginning to look like a sunk costs trap. So it was time to say good bye to Old Paint. By the grace of God, I do have another truck now. It was a good way for a truck to sing as much of a swan song as a truck can. And for those who like to dig deep into such things, there is an Easter egg of sorts in the video.
Piper, Trump and NQN
God’s storytelling is truly the best! NQN starts The. Day. Before. the 2020 election. We all get a no-holds barred (surely to be banned tho) commentary on the culmination of the most ridiculous year a lot of us can imagine. Get to fire starting Pastor Doug . . . we brought our marshmallows and whiskey!
Jordan
Jordan, thanks for the encouragement. But I am not sure I needed any.
RE: John Piper’s Position on Trump
Pastor John deserves our appreciation for conducting a long, faithful Gospel ministry in the very left-wing state of Minnesota. But I can’t help wonder if the state’s crazy liberal politics subtly rubbed off on Piper in his assessment of Trump.
Ted
Ted, yes. And the terrible thing would be if the election were really close, and came down in Biden’s favor, but with a margin that made it at least possible that John’s post had something to do with the outcome. That would be quite a horrible capstone to many years of faithfulness on the pro-life issue.
Thanks for your reply to John Piper, and especially your respect paid to him (more than I personally think is due him). It was to me another expression of the spirit that led George Whitfield to say to his followers, who were salivating with the hope he would condemn John Wesley, that they shouldn’t worry about seeing Wesley in heaven. “In heaven,” he said, “Wesley will be so much closer to the throne of God, that we won’t be able to see him.”
Steve
Steve, yes. That’s the spirit.
Ref Dryer-Vent-Lint-for-Brains Let me start with saying I enjoy No quarter November as much as the next person.
Doug I have a hypothetical question for you. No trick, I don’t know what your answer will be, just curious as to your thoughts. Suppose there was a Socialist (note upper case) candidate who was Pro-life. This is a no-kidding Socialist who would implement a Socialist program, and if anyone has the ability to get it done he (we’ll make he) does. However, he is firmly anti-abortion, plans to do anti-abortion things, and has a track record of so doing. His opponent is pro-abortion. Would you vote for the Socialist? Third party? Not vote?
John
John, there are obviously many other variables, but to get at the heart of your question, I could see myself voting for a pro-life Socialist over against a pro-abortion Socialist. But a lot would ride on the surrounding circumstances.
Reading a Theodore Dalrymple piece on the “white guilt” (or call it what you will) of Norwegians (and other Europeans) who justify the criminal acts of their Muslim illegal Immigrants. This puts me very much in mind of your spat with Piper: In Orthodoxy, Chesterton wrote that the modern world “is full of wild and wasted virtues.” He continued:
When a religious scheme is shattered . . . it is not merely the vices that are less loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. . . . some humanitarians care only for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.
Steve
Steve, Chesterton is on the nose far more often than he has any right to be.
RE: A Second Round on John Piper, Me, and the Cool Shame Election Yep, yes, and amen.
“And a bunch of evangelicals would believe them.”
That, sir, is the nub of it.
Dave
Dave, yes. I am afraid so.
RE: a-second-round-on-john-piper-me-and-the-cool-shame-election: I’m noticing a trend in “gospel-centered” evangelical churches where all sins are being flattened and granted equal weight morally. Given that some of these churches really truly value the Word as authoritative, why do you think they are coming to these conclusions?
Thanks for all you do,
Mark
Mark, I think the egalitarian impulse gets into everything. The egalitarian heart hates distinctions of value, for better or worse. When sins are flattened, it then becomes possible to stop making distinctions as a prelude to the imposition of the Ideology.
On Buying Stuff
I am interested in purchasing a number of your children’s books. Is there a venue to purchase them outside of Amazon? I try to avoid supporting Amazon if at all possible. Thanks!
Will
Will, you can purchase a number of our books for kids directly from Canon Press. If you look at the top menu bar here, you will see Cannonball Books, which is the kids’ division.
Do you guys have “No Quarter November” t-shirts? I wear a 2X large. The logo and promo videos are cool.
Aaron
Aaron, not yet. But it is possible . . . anything is possible. Stay tuned just in case.
On My Theopolitics
I appreciate reading your posts and have been blessed by them. One thing you have given me a greater vision for is Church and the nations, specifically the US. From what I gather you adhere to Christian Reconstructionism, which I understand believes America was a Christian nation and we need to get back to that. Have you interacted and considered the theology of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom? It alleges to be more in line with reformation thought and that America was never a Christian nation, but does believes that it needs to come under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This view is held by the RPCNA. William Symmington wrote a book on it called Messiah the Prince: the mediatorial dominion of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you could engage with this and compare/contrast to Christian Reconstructionism. Godspeed.
Daniel
Daniel, thanks. Yes, I have read Symmington’s book, and loved it. I do believe that the United States was a Christian republic at its founding, but with a lot of imperfections, and with a lot of work to do. And that work would include a lot of helpful input from the mediatorial guys.
Full Orbed and Reformed
I know this isn’t an Ask Doug forum but I’m struggling to find reformed leaders I can trust these days so here it goes. I have been doing a bunch of reading recently on the prevailing worldviews of our day (Coddling of the American Mind, Cynical Theories, etc.) but I want to know more than just what I DON’T believe. Do you know of a list or what you’d recommend to laypeople who are interested in studying the traditional biblical worldview?
Thanks!
Andrew
Andrew, I would recommend Angels in the Architecture. And check out this small booklet put out by New St. Andrews called 30 Theses on Culture Shaping.
Making Memories for the Kids
Most mornings, as I cook breakfast for my six kids, I listen to a podcast of yours, of some sort. You are the soundtrack, and I can’t think of a more worthwhile for (especially) my five boys to hear . . . especially since their dad is military is always gone hours before they’re conscious. I was raised on a farm in Nebraska; the soundtrack of our mornings was my dad listening to Paul Harvey on the local AM farm station. I could tease out some analogy here about commodity markets, wisdom, and Biblical wisdom as a Proverbial commodity—but thank you for what you do.
Also, November is my birthday and NQN suits me right down to the ground. Thanks!
Amanda
Amanda, thanks very much.
Boy Meets Girls
I just finished watching your Boy Meets Girl talk and the question someone asked about respecting a not-so-respectable person brought to mind another question for me. You mentioned that a young lady shouldn’t try to mother a guy into being respectful (which I totally agree with) and she should run the other way, or ask trustworthy men to speak into that guy’s life. What about a scenario where you see someone married to a Christian man who is drifting or limping through life, not really leading the home, or just lets things happen to him rather than self-initiating and working up the courage to risk the comforts they experience while their wife is in the driver’s seat? I want to encourage my female Christian friend to respect her husband in the little things he does do well, but there is friction in the areas where he isn’t doing much, and I want to stay in my lane while encouraging everyone to go further up and further in. The man in question has few male friends, isn’t really connected to a church community, and his father has similar patterns of behaviour. He is a nice person, but things look stagnant and boring with no real map or motivation to move anywhere anytime soon.
Thoughts? What does respect look like here, and what advice would you have for a wife so she doesn’t fall into the nagging pit of despair that neither party enjoys?
Thanks!
Laura
Laura, I hope my short answer doesn’t make it look like I think it is a small problem. This is a big problem as you describe it, and in many marriages. Dealing with this in a marriage already established is much more difficult than staying out of a marriage like that. But once that is a given, the thing I would start with is encouraging the wife to salute the uniform. Just as love has a tendency to bestow loveliness in women, so also respect makes a man want to stand up straighter. I would also encourage the wife to read my Reforming Marriage. There is a section in there called The Nice Guy Syndrome, which addresses this particular problem.
Divine Simplicity
This isn’t in response to a post so I’m not sure it’s the right forum to ask a question and maybe you guys don’t field general theological questions form jo-Q-public. But I thought it’s worth a shot so-in laymen’s terms what is divine simplicity? Spent hours trying to wrap my mind around it watching debates and lectures and reading, only to get fleeting glimpses of what it’s all about being left frustrated. It seems like to Roman Catholicism and a lot of evangelicals it’s a necessary orthodoxy. What does Doug Wilson say of divine simplicity?
Wade
Wade, I’m for it. Those who emphasize how crucial it is are correct. Divine simplicity is simply to say that the one true God is not an assemblage of parts. His essence is one. But there is a tightrope here. Those who emphasize this too much might wake up one morning and find themselves Unitarians. Those who emphasize the three persons of the Trinity too much, leaning the other way, may wake up one morning and find themselves tri-theists. The trick is to acknowledge that we believe in one God, with one divine essence, in three persons, and these persons are not “parts” of God, but nor are they mere expressions of God. One word of warning. If you do ever get your mind around it, that should be treated as a danger sign.
A Book for the Present Moment
A Justice Primer
A basic introduction to the principles of biblical justice, desperately needed in our time.
John asked about voting for a theoretical pro-life Socialist. Trump IS that guy, without the label, isn’t he? How many in bailout cash has been given away? How many trillions does Congress and POTUS need to print before someone is a socialist? How much funding needs to go towards compulsory schooling? How many businesses have been shut down? Oh, and as to Trump being pro-life because he spoke at a rally…funding Planned Parenthood seems more important, doesn’t it? https://tinyurl.com/y4qygolc Trump is going to win yuge! If I had told you that an Impreached incumbent shut down the nation and destroyed… Read more »
Trump is far from a traditional conservative and spends federal money like it grows on trees but he is no socialist. That term gets thrown around a lot without consideration for what it means. Socialism “advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Trump isn’t advocating for that and I don’t think his actions do either.
I am more worried about his encouragement of a bigger welfare state (which includes bailouts) than I am that he’ll turn socialist.
Well, a bigger welfare state is still a form of socialism. I see your point but am not sure if that definition of socialism is comprehensive enough.
Ron… Allow me some common sense counterpoints: Trump has, in fact, signed ridiculous spending bills, bail-outs, and other “big government” programs. His signature is on it. The buck stops with him…but, let us not forget where these things originate. Trump is, in fact, pro-life. Yes, he has spoken at a rally…quite a lot, actually. He has had a change of heart on the pro-life front, and he has been consistent since. But whether you believe his stance to be genuine, you must certainly be pleased with his actions. Trump was impeached…by a cabal of blood-thirsty haters who based the whole… Read more »
Trump appointed Fauci and Birx! It’s Trump’s CDC! The testing, the compensation racket, it’s all his. Quibble? Marriage isn’t some petty triffle. It’s a reflection of the Gospel! Whatever one thinks of Marxism and other isms, we should all recognize that we’re very far away from American Ideals here, and that Trump is nothing short of a man our founders would have heaped great scorn upon. https://tinyurl.com/ybh3undv Trump is our judgement, for this time. There are more to come. He’ll fight harder to retain Big Ten Football than get the McCloskey’s or Kyle Rittenhouse out of legal peril. He’ll save… Read more »
“How many trillions does Congress and POTUS need to print before someone is a socialist?”
Infinite, as socialism is not defined by government payouts to any group. Its a terrible idea anyway, but it isn’t socialist. Socialism is the government owning the means of the production, the capital. So until the Government declares ownership of all the factories, it isn’t socialism.
I refer you to Governor DeWhine, a GOP stalwart who has held many offices in Ohio. https://tinyurl.com/yywzjotd “You own it, you control it” Here you see him gaslighting business owners, saying that they’re responsible, but can/will be shut down by the “Health Dept” https://tinyurl.com/y8kxuyne “If someone is not controlling the environment, we’re going to hold the people who own the bars and restaurants accountable”. Are you making a case with our perpetual real estate taxes and licensing schemes, that Americans are free to use their capital ( generated by fraud https://tinyurl.com/y4wmybcm ) in Liberty and freedom? Is Trump stopping this… Read more »
Also, are you seeing what Michigan is pulling?
https://tinyurl.com/y27t2vu3
Shall Trump fight this, so that Governors/Statehouses don’t consider this tyranny?
A whole host of valid complaints….. none of which are directly tied to the point I was making. I didn’t say that these government policies were good, just the opposite. Merely that they aren’t socialist. High taxation is bad policy. It isn’t socialist. Draconian spying or environmental requirements are bad policy and a violation of rights, they aren’t socialism.
Its a specific accusation. I don’t think its wise to conflate socialism with bad left wing governance broadly because it convinces the ignorant that socialism is a normal and acceptable mainstream political position.
Justin,
You’re right of course, but, of course, that won’t stop people from conflating socialism with whatever government policy they dislike. What we need is a real honest-to-goodness viable Socialist party. I don’t mean we need them in power, but just to provide contrast with things that are not actually socialism.
Senator Cruz also “conflating” socialism with unhealthy government policy.
https://tinyurl.com/y3wmv2jb
Every president, Republican or Democrat, has had elements of socialism in their policies for decades. That includes both Bushes and yes even Reagan. Do you not think RINOs like Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush, etc. would not have done even worse during the early COVID months? Trump at least put up some resistance and didn’t go full socialist panic mode like the Dems wanted. Bush was every bit as much of a socialist during the 2008 financial panic, pushing bailouts and policies (along with Obama later) that set the precedent for what we did in COVID.
Steve, concerning the Whitefield/Wesley anecdote, it’s not clear whether Whitefield said this about Wesley, or vice versa. Both versions exist: in his 1902 book, “The History of Methodism”, John Fletcher Hurst has it as Wesley talking about Whitefield.
Anyone figure this out yet?
“And for those who like to dig deep into such things, there is an Easter egg of sorts in the video.”
The ‘Pappy’ hat, the music, mostly peaceful? Watched it three times…must not be digging deep enough.
(Henry V, paraphrased)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-yZNMWFqvM
I’m glad John brought up the question about socialism, as conservatives seem to have constructed this weird bogeyman out of something that, properly applied, can actually serve as a very effective weapon against the evil institutions that control our society. The idea of nationalizing Big Tech, Hollywood, certain elements of the mainstream media, or maybe even all three, should be something we’re willing to consider. At the very least it can serve as a kind of Damocletian sword to hang over these institutions to keep them from promoting all the things we find abhorrent.
Yes, giving the Federal government full control over Big Tech, Hollywood, the MSM, etc. sounds like a wonderful idea….especially if we get a Biden/Harris ticket, or another Obama or AOC type down the road. I mean what could be better than non-elected Deep State bureaucrats running the show….and we know how wonderful and unbiased National Pravda Radio has been.
Armin, I think you need to crawl back into your National Socialist bunker.
These institutions are hostile to Christians and are already acting openly against our interests, with not only no real government oversight, but often actual applause from RINO conservatives who should be defending Christian values. So your argument about some future abuse of that power doesn’t hold.
No, my argument absolutely does hold. There are plenty of bureaucrats and gov’t agencies that are at least as hostile to Christians and are acting against our interests. This has been true for well over a century, but especially in recent decades. At least private sector organizations can be fined or sued or simply hit in the pocketbook as people stop using their services. Once you give the reigns to the government, it’s MUCH harder to stop them. They’re highly paid bureaucrats with lifelong salaries/pensions and no real skin in the game.
So you’d rather allow institutions that distribute child pornography or promote sexual mutilation of children to continue to operate than use state power to shut them down? Are you that devoted to your free market ideology?
I’ll let you figure out which logical fallacy you just committed.
If you think we can fully stop transmission of child porn (or drugs or anything else) by employing godless bureaucrats (many of whom have said material on their hard drives and phones), I’ve got some lush, green riverfront property in Saudi Arabia to sell you.
I never said we had to do it with the current crop of bureaucrats. I’m talking about general principles. There is nothing morally wrong with wielding state power against hostile elites in these industries. That’s all I’m saying.
” with not only no real government oversight,”
Except the problem, as is usually the case, is government already being too involved. These companies have been given special immunity to litigation based on the content of their websites. This was done under the premise that they *don’t* edit or curate the content of the website. Be a platform, not a publisher. If the government weren’t standing in the way, the problem would already fix itself in the court room.
Armin, I agree with you that “muh private business” conservatives are naive to the power and intentions of Big Tech and the damage to our Christian cause. They are far more powerful and nefarious than anyone in government at this point, not even close. I am also sympathetic to your economic leanings about using the government to help a nation’s citizens. But socialism is not the right label. If you really mean socialism, I openly oppose that. If you mean a more robust welfare state, I can get behind that, with one caveat. We have to have a high trust… Read more »
“Rampant immigration and an unwillingness by our leaders to expect assimilation has created a society where we don’t trust our neighbors.”
BJ, can you explain why you don’t trust your neighbors, and what immigration has to do with it? Seriously. I keep reading where people talk about “high trust society” and I’m not sure I understand what they mean. IF a German style social market economy wouldn’t really work in the U.S. it is because too many people are lazy, prodigal, and dishonest, and I don’t trust those kind of people, but I’m talking about people who are born here.
You don’t see a connection between immigration and a lack of trust? I’m not suggesting that immigration is the only reason we have lost trust, but I think it is the most important.
I see a connection between xenophobia and lack of trust, but I don’t blame immigration for that. What I need to see better explained is the connection between the success of a robust welfare state and what you call a high trust society. Why does a national social welfare program require a high trust society? People don’t want to help people they don’t like, and some will even cut off their nose to spite their face, if that’s what you mean. In that case, what we want might better be described as a more charitable society, or a more rational… Read more »
“I see a connection between xenophobia and lack of trust, but I don’t blame immigration for that.” Nonsensical statement that sounds like something right out of an SJW’s playbook. A welfare state coupled with open (or near open) borders and rampant immigration is a nightmare. Then again, I don’t believe in any form of a “robust” welfare state. It’s a completely backwards incentive structure that’s in opposition to 2 Thes 3:10 and 1 Tim 5:8. Any robust welfare state will be gamed through rent-seeking. That’s why we have multiple generational welfare and some of the most privileged people (the ones… Read more »
“They rely heavily on debt and globalization, as almost everything they have is imported.”
Wait, are you talking about European countries, or the United States?
See below, and note where homogeneous Japan sits. Take a look too at France, UK, Germany, and the Netherlands, all of which have robust social welfare programs, but none of which are as homogeneous as Japan, and see and how they compare the U.S. in terms of debt Per Capita.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/is-the-united-states-the-worlds-most-indebted-coun.aspx
“I see a connection between xenophobia and lack of trust, but I don’t blame immigration for that.” Lol. I’ll just leave this on the table for all to see.
“Why does a national social welfare program require a high trust society?” Do you really not see the connection? If the nation is taking my money to provide help for my neighbor, I have to have some confidence that he is not wasting my money on nonsense. It becomes exploitative, a movement of productivity from someone who is responsible to someone who is isn’t. That destroys a society quickly.
“If the nation is taking my money to provide help for my neighbor, I have to have some confidence that he is not wasting my money on nonsense.” I agree, but if we had no immigrants whatsoever the concern and complaint would be the same. Why would the mere fact that your neighbor is an immigrant cause you to suspect he is is wasting your money on nonsense? Why would the mere fact your neighbor is a native give you confidence he is spending money responsibly? You can Lol if that is your response, but it is not explaining your… Read more »
JohnM, You can just call me bigoted, brother. You don’t have to play coy around here. You might feel better. There are, of course, many great and non-wasteful immigrants. Europeans do not have a monopoly on hard work, nor can we say that nobody among us is lazy. I mentioned immigrants, because when someone comes to another country with a totally different culture, different religion, different values, different language, and with no connection whatsoever, they have to be willing to assimilate if they want to gain trust. This is why I said, “an unwillingness by our leaders to expect assimilation”… Read more »
“Europeans do not have a monopoly on hard work, nor can we say that nobody among us is lazy.” You are European? I’m American. I thought we were talking about America. Does your trust issue have to do with assimilation, or does it have to do with the welfare state? If it is the former then it shouldn’t matter whether we have a robust welfare state or not. If in the analogy my house is America and my brother is the native born, the thing is my brother didn’t move in at my sufferance, rather he inherited the house and… Read more »
John, I think there is always a tendency to believe that any social benefit will be abused by people who are Not Like Us. My own dear father used to grumble about people who abused Canada’s universal health coverage by going to the doctor when it wasn’t strictly necessary. In his view, decent Canadians should be willing to put up with an arthritic knee rather than run up costs! High trust meant that you all agree that you won’t abuse the system, you won’t jump the queue, and you won’t take unnecessary risks with your health. Once enough people decide… Read more »
Thanks Jill. That’s the best explanation of high trust I seen. Not only is the perception of immigrants possibly unfair, but I wonder how many Canadians are really reliably Canadian. I don’t know much about Canadians, but I do know something about fundamental human nature. I also know something about Americans and the way they behave, and if I’m going to worry about anyone taking advantage of the system my worry is not going to start with immigrants. The immigrants I know have jobs and pay taxes. There certainly is a rational, non-xenophobic concern about expansion of social benefits, and… Read more »
If socialism means the state owning industries, then in the case of the industries I mentioned I think it’s something to seriously consider. It may be better to call it “nationalization” as that doesn’t carry the same negative connotations for a lot of conservatives. You’re exactly right about the necessity of having a high trust society. Having a robust “welfare state” is not fundamentally problematic when there is national cohesion. True nationalism involves seeing your countrymen as being almost like extended family, which carries with it certain obligations the citizens are happy to take upon themselves. In a low trust,… Read more »
“True nationalism also recognizes that institutions that carry great power have an obligation to uphold the general wellbeing of society. ”
Amen.
“Armin, I agree with you that ‘muh private business’ conservatives are naive to the power and intentions of Big Tech.” Actually I’ve only heard that argument from leftists trying to make conservatives look inconsistent. As Justin said, they shouldn’t have immunity and there are myriad other grounds where they can and should be challenged in court. Under Armin’s scenario, something like NPR would become our Ministry of Truth and they could lie like this all day…and there may not be an alternative media to challenge them: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/22/npr-falsely-calls-victim-of-attack-by-rioters-a-white-supremacist/ As far as nationalization of industries, Armin is taking directly from Hitler and… Read more »
“Actually I’ve only heard that argument from leftists trying to make conservatives look inconsistent.” You need to read more then. I hate leftism, and I also think Big Tech is the biggest threat to our liberties that exists today.
I’m also aware of Armin’s racialized leanings. I don’t share them, but I do see myself as a Nationalist. a Christian one to be specific. Open borders and global free trade are corrosive to national cohesion. And, national cohesion is far more important than cheap toys at Walmart.
“You need to read more then.” Wait, I addressed my own problems with Big Tech. You’re the one who misread me. I’m not for open borders either. But again, I know of virtually no paleo-conservative/libertarian types or Constitutionalists who run around saying “Big tech is a private business, breh…they can do what they want.” They understand the problems just like I do. These companies are supposed to be publishers, not platforms. But it’s insanely naive to think we can replace them (along with the MSM & Hollywood) with a bunch of gov’t workers (Deep State? NPR?) to improve things. That’s… Read more »
Except for that whole thing about stealing companies from the people they belong to being a violation of the eighth commandment, it sounds great!
That is the sticking point, isn’t it? Apart from the theft involved, it also strikes me as unjust to punish a company for being wildly successful in giving the public exactly what the public appears to want.
FB, Twitter, et. al, may have given the public what they wanted originally (including vanity enhancers with “likes” and “shares” to manipulate brain chemistry just like the gambling industry does). However, at this point they have network effects, amazing technology and huge sums of money that make it very hard for competitors to take sign their market share. I know tons of people who are sick of FB/Twitter/Youtube’s censorship, deplatforming, suspensions and other games. But they can’t find friends (or followers if they’re a business or a brand) on other platforms.
I didn’t say anything about stealing these companies. The state would purchase a controlling interest from the shareholders.
And if the shareholders say No? Would it be obligatory? Is that not theft?
What exactly is it that you think the 10th amendment prohibits?
You would force them to sell at the fair market value. That’s not stealing. Also, nationalization is not a new thing in the U.S.
Forcing someone to give up their property at gunpoint is most certainly stealing even if you leave a bag of gold on the ground as you back away. The fact that it’s been done before doesn’t change it.
Jane, the people who control these industries hate you and want you dead. They see themselves as being at war. I’m happy to grant certain basic principles to people who reciprocate, but these people don’t. They will not respect our free speech and would be happy to have us all thrown in prison for speaking Biblical truth. Maybe that’s what God has in store for us, but I don’t see why that means we can’t fight them in the meantime. You’re not truly respecting principles of freedom by allowing those same principles to morally restrain you from fighting against people… Read more »
You are dishonestly conflating “fighting” with “violating the most basic Christian principles.”
You don’t have to do one to do the other.
What principle am I violating?
Shorter: “It’s okay to break the commandments if I think it will make things better.” I’m not talking about some abstract “principles of freedom” that can be adjusted in accordance with whatever course of action we believe produces the most freedom in the area in which we most value freedom at a particular moment. I’m talking about the thing where God says we’re not allowed to steal things from other people, even those who hate us. I would love to see those who would oppress us in all the ways you rightfully deplore cast down, but breaking the commandments on… Read more »
Again, not stealing. All the government would have to do is publicly offer to all the company’s shareholders to buy the stock for a small amount above its current fair market value, which would likely enable them to easily acquire 51% ownership. There doesn’t inherently have to be force behind the transaction. But even if there were force involved, I think you could make the case that this would be a legitimate use of the “sword” of Romans 13. The “sword” is there to protect the innocent and punish the wicked to uphold social order, which is certainly the idea… Read more »
” I think you could make the case that this would be a legitimate use of the “sword” of Romans 13. The “sword” is there to protect the innocent and punish the wicked to uphold social order, which is certainly the idea behind nationalizing these destructive industries.”
Is there anything then that you *can’t* justify under the same Romans 13 argument provided you thought your particular target unjust enough?
We haven’t even gotten to the effectiveness part of the conversation. Giving the state control of social media is loading a shotgun and pointing it at your own face.
“I’m happy to grant certain basic principles to people who reciprocate, but these people don’t.”
This is the crux of the matter. Until we the fight for what it is, we will continue to lose.
BJ, as long as that doesn’t mean we can throw specific commandments of God overboard to win the fight. I agree that these people are out to get us and heed to be fought, but there is a way to gain the world and lose our souls, even in pursuit of genuine goods.
Whatever the intention of those who argue that all sins carry equal moral weight, the effect on sinful human nature isn’t healthy. If stealing pencils from the office is as wicked as committing adultery, the effect over time isn’t to make us view petty pilferage with horror. It’s to make us less appalled by the thought of adultery.
Long time no talk Jill. I can see a rationale for all sins being equal in a very eternity driven, spiritual world sense. After all, there’s really only one sin if you want to simplify down all the way, disobedience to God. The idea though overlooks perspective. We aren’t in Heaven, we’re on Earth, and on Earth things have a size and scale notably different than a completely and totally abstracted rhetorical construct. Stealing from the cookie jar and bashing a young girl’s head in have different consequences, and so require different levels of corruption in the sinner to perform,… Read more »
Perhaps it would be more clarifying and accurate to say that God’s holiness is so pristine and demanding that even very small sins will be decisively punished.
Excellent point, Jill.
Tonight is the night that shall either make us, or undo us, quite.
I respectfully disagree. We’re simply delaying the inevitable. This comes to a head soon enough. https://tinyurl.com/y24fx4zt “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and… Read more »
All man conceived governments are delaying the inevitable in one form or another, though I don’t fundamentally disagree with you here. Yourversion though makes it hard for me to quote Othello.
It looks like they’re trying to steal the election in broad daylight. Shenanigans in multiple states, including PA allowing late ballots with no postmarks to be counted. God help us.