How can one be a Christian and support the state?

[UnReconstructed]

A statist would be anyone advocating statism. Statism is the belief that the best way to organize humanity would be to centralize power in the form of a state.

 

[Deborah K]

A statist would be anyone advocating statism. Statism is the belief that the best way to organize humanity would be to centralize power in the form of a state.

So, anyone who isn't an anarchist, et al. ?

 

[Met Income]

So, anyone who isn't an anarchist, et al. ?

Still hung up on the popular stigma of anarchy? How do we reconcile the initiation of violence and Jesus?

 

[Deborah K]

Still hung up on the popular stigma of anarchy? How do we reconcile the initiation of violence and Jesus?

Yeah, I'm hung up. I don't ascribe to your philosophical views so that means I'm hung up.

Where in the Constitution do the founders advocate violence?

 

[Met Income]

Yeah, I'm hung up. I don't ascribe to your philosophical views so that means I'm hung up.

Where in the Constitution do the founders advocate violence?

These aren’t my philosophical views. These are truths that are verifiable and independent of what I think or what I want.

Did Jesus support the initiation of violence?

Does the State support the initiation of violence?

Do both have the same answer? There ya go.

 

[Deborah K]

These aren’t my philosophical views. These are truths that are verifiable and independent of what I think or what I want.

Did Jesus support the initiation of violence?

Does the State support the initiation of violence?

Do both have the same answer? There ya go.

I see you have conveniently avoided answering my question.

 

[Met Income]

I see you have conveniently avoided answering my question.

And you didn't answer the one that I posed to you before your question.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Yeah, I'm hung up. I don't ascribe to your philosophical views so that means I'm hung up.

Where in the Constitution do the founders advocate violence?

Deb, watch this: http://patriotpastor.org/

I promise it's worth your time. Skip ahead to 11:30 to hear his speech. Pastor Lear is certainly not an anarchist but explains in this talk the violent struggle of the founders.

Pastor Lear is giving the invocation at the VT C4L convention on Saturday.

 

[Deborah K]

And you didn't answer the one that I posed to you before your question.

Your questions are rhetorical and don't require answers. Mine does.

 

[Deborah K]

Deb, watch this: http://patriotpastor.org/

I promise it's worth your time. Skip ahead to 11:30 to hear his speech. Pastor Lear is certainly not an anarchist but explains in this talk the violent struggle of the founders.

Pastor Lear is giving the invocation at the VT C4L convention on Saturday.

If you recommend it, I shall watch it.

 

[Met Income]

Your questions are rhetorical and don't require answers. Mine does.

Based on this:

Did Jesus support the initiation of violence?

Does the State support the initiation of violence?

Do both have the same answer? There ya go.

they can be answered. You're just punting. Both questions are verifiably true.

 

[Deborah K]

Based on this:



they can be answered. You're just punting. Both questions are verifiably true.

Of course they can be answered. My point is that they don't require an answer because the answers are obvious. My question on the other hand, requires you to answer it because you are alluding to the premise that the Constitution advocates violence and I need you to show me where it does this.

I am for restoring the republic. I think the Constitution when it is adhered to, protects people's freedoms. Nowadays, apparently in this forum, that makes me a statist. And un-Christian to boot! What a load of crap!

 

[LittleLightShining]

Of course they can be answered. My point is that they don't require an answer because the answers are obvious. My question on the other hand, requires you to answer it because you are alluding to the premise that the Constitution advocates violence and I need you to show me where it does this.

I am for restoring the republic. I think the Constitution when it is adhered to, protects people's freedoms. Nowadays, apparently in this forum, that makes me a statist. What a load of crap!

Awwww... I was hoping you were watching now. I'm all choked up after listening again. Can't WAIT til Saturday!

 

[Deborah K]

Awwww... I was hoping you were watching now. I'm all choked up after listening again. Can't WAIT til Saturday!

Why, what's going on Saturday. And I'm going to grab a sandwich in a minute, and then I'll watch it, k?

 

[Met Income]

Of course they can be answered. My point is that they don't require an answer because the answers are obvious. My question on the other hand, requires you to answer it because you are alluding to the premise that the Constitution advocates violence and I need you to show me where it does this.

I am for restoring the republic. I think the Constitution when it is adhered to, protects people's freedoms. Nowadays, apparently in this forum, that makes me a statist. And un-Christian to boot! What a load of crap!

The Constitution does not protect freedom. It legitimizes the State, which uses the initiation of violence to complete their goals. Some of the goals seem good, some seem bad. Regardless, the initiation of violence is immoral, no matter what the goal is.

Jesus did not advocate the initiation of violence against others. Therefore, being a Christian and supporting the State are totally contradictory.

 

[Deborah K]

The Constitution does not protect freedom. It legitimizes the State, which uses the initiation of violence to complete their goals. Some of the goals seem good, some seem bad. Regardless, the initiation of violence is immoral, no matter what the goal is.

Jesus did not advocate the initiation of violence against others. Therefore, being a Christian and supporting the State are totally contradictory.

The Constitution does protect our freedom. And if we put up with the state initiating violence that is our own fault.

 

[tremendoustie]

... you are alluding to the premise that the Constitution advocates violence and I need you to show me where it does this.

How about the first line of article 1, section 8?

I know there are some constitutionalists here who, either by their interpretation of the original document, or support for certain amendments, make the constitution much more voluntaryist (gunny is an example).

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with this (far from it!), but that's not how it was intended, or used originally. All indications are, when they said taxes, they meant forced confiscation of wealth. The whiskey rebellion, for example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion ), was less than ten years after the constitution was ratified.

I am for restoring the republic. I think the Constitution when it is adhered to, protects people's freedoms. Nowadays, apparently in this forum, that makes me a statist.

If you want to restore the constitution, you're my ally, and should be considered the ally of everyone who wants more freedom. I suppose whether you're a "statist" depends on whose defining the word.

And un-Christian to boot! What a load of crap!

I wouldn't consider a consitutionalist "un-christian". However, since I am a Christian (and so believe God is the source of morality), and a voluntaryist (a moral position), that must mean I believe the voluntaryist position is most in keeping with God's nature.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Why, what's going on Saturday. And I'm going to grab a sandwich in a minute, and then I'll watch it, k?

Pastor Lear is giving the invocation at the VT Campaign For Liberty convention.

 

[LittleLightShining]

The Constitution does not protect freedom. It legitimizes the State, which uses the initiation of violence to complete their goals. Some of the goals seem good, some seem bad. Regardless, the initiation of violence is immoral, no matter what the goal is.

Jesus did not advocate the initiation of violence against others. Therefore, being a Christian and supporting the State are totally contradictory.

You should watch the video that I posted, too. Start at 11:30.

I just realized the video doesn't have a direct url. You'll have to click on "videos" and scroll down to the 7th video from the bottom-- the Faneuil Hall video.

 

[Deborah K]

How about the first line of article 1, section 8?

I know there are some constitutionalists here who, either by their interpretation of the original document, or support for certain amendments, make the constitution much more voluntaryist (gunny is an example).

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with this (far from it!), but that's not how it was intended, or used originally. All indications are, when they said taxes, they meant forced confiscation of wealth. The whiskey rebellion, for example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion ), was less than ten years after the constitution was ratified.



If you want to restore the constitution, you're my ally, and should be considered the ally of everyone who wants more freedom. I suppose whether you're a "statist" depends on whose defining the word.



I wouldn't consider a consitutionalist "un-christian". However, since I am a Christian (and so believe God is the source of morality), and a voluntaryist (a moral position), that must mean I believe the voluntaryist position is most in keeping with God's nature.

I don't view Article 1 sec. 8 as advocating for violence. Sorry. The Constitution was ratified which means the respective states agreed with its premise. I don't see how you can conclude that this somehow means that it "uses the initiation of violence" to achieve its goals.