The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be of the view that somewhere in the Bible, it says “take the wealth of others by force and give it to people best able to work the political system”. Just another statist thug, but then we already knew that.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Christian charity means taking money by force, apparentlyNovember 17th, 2009 |
 105 comments to Christian charity means taking money by force, apparently |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Time and Tithe wait for no man…
What a daft prat of a prelate he is.
He obviously has no grasp of Economics, but more worryingly, he seems to know little about Protestantism either.
What is he doing to stop the Pope poaching his Bishops?
The Bible is full of statist and anti-wealth messages, such as the crappy argument that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven, etc. The sad truth is that if power-worshippers want to find Biblical support for their views, they will find them.
The church has often been very comfortable with a strong state, and there is no reason to think that Williams is unusual in his views.
“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
Church and state have often gone hand-in-hand in oppression, and often don’t need each other to do it. In America, a preacher can wield power comparable to any dictator, destroying the minds of his followers-Jim Jones anyone?
I could never understand religious or spiritual libertarians; what’s the difference between some invisible man in the sky or an absolute monarchy on the throne? You lose your freedom either way.
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”-Denis Diderot
Words well spoken.
The Devil points out the irony of a man whose business is haemorrhaging customers at a great rate of knots lecturing the government and business on economic matters.
I frequent the likes of MSNBC to peer into the minds of State supporting media types and I have noted that they recently seem to be courting the religious sorts to come into the left fold (obviously there has always been the religious left but they have been hidden away until now so as to not interfere with the assault on the religious right – got to keep the propaganda clean and pure). I see it merely as a consolidation of all interventionists into one Holy Assembly; anyone who wants to push somebody else around to make their superstition based constructions as much a reality as possible are welcome at the table. It makes it all that much more necessary for those on the libertarian end of the scale to stop sniping with each other over details. Statists are much more adept at compromising with each other and if the libertarian/minarchic sorts cast each other off over small details the Statists won’t have to worry about “divide and conquer” we’ll just be doing it for them. I do realize that it seems to go against the basic ethos of individualism, but if there isn’t some sort of real cohesion, at least for some duration, between liberty minded people there is little or no hope that we won’t be fully consumed by those with Good Ideas.
RAB says he has no grasp of Economics. He has no grasp of Christianity either.
Well if he and his clerics were doing their jobs there would be a social conscious where the hungry are fed and the naked clothed (as well asthe education to grow your own food and weave your own clothes) with the planet being treated with respect (after all having dominion over the earth bring with it all the responsibities of ownershp and what owner intentinally destroys their home).
Or to be cynical. One more example as to why the CofE is as increasingly irrelevent as it is.
He’s happy to be known as a “hairy lefty”. Nuff said.
Samizdata’s commentariat is taking a turn for the worse, to put it mildly. Where’s Ian B? I mean, bloody hell, citing Diderot? Diderot? Twit
Moving on
Sigh, you just don’t get it, do you? The state Williams supports is not “strong”, if it was it would be able to control its borders for a start. The state he favours is big and weak and that’s exactly what we have and will continue to get. Stop fighting bloody mirages.
And, yeah, he’s a disgrace to the office of Parker and Clarendon. Of all the subsets of Christianity, the one I probably despise most is the mutant Left-liberal offshoot of Anglo-Catholicism. Idolatry, wooly sermons and a pro PLO literature do not a parish make.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. The state takes almost half of our income and tries, with a fair degree of success, to regulate a lot of the rest of it. That is pretty “strong” from where I am standing, Gabriel. Sure, in some areas the state is ineffective. But it is clear that Dr Williams favours Big Government.
Can’t remember which translation of the bible that was from but Williams is a theological scholar so no doubt he could tell me.
It appears to be the case that collecting taxes (especially taxes on economic activity or productive capital) to be spent for your own benefit (or on your pet schemes) makes people worse off overall, no dispute there.
Only my view is that there are a lot of private revenues which are, to all intents and purposes, taxes. Just because they are collected by private individuals or companies (rather than by The State) does mean that they aren’t taxes.
Gabriel: You again? I looked at that picture; sets up a false dichotomy, it does. Besides, I think Mises himself supported the French Revolution, not to mention had nothing nice to say about religion. I think he would take my side on this.
I stand by what I quoted; Diderot was right, and you are too blind to see how leftist and statist Christianity really is. Morally conservative, anti-wealth, and demanding blind worship of an invisible man in the sky. I prefer to set free the critical powers of human reasoning; no topic should be taboo.
Mr Williams (appointed “Arch Bishop” as a parting shot by Mr Blair) once described himself as a “bearded lefty”.
While saying this he made that little smile people use to say “as I am smileing you can not attack me for this – even though I am NOT being ironic, I am simply describing what I am”.
Mr Williams should go into politics and argue his case – and accept that people will present arguments against his position.
He should not continue to pretend to be a Christian priest claiming (by the place he makes his political speeches and by the manner in which he makes his political speeches) that Christian doctrine states that yet more money is to be taken by violence (on top of the about half income that is already taken by the threat of violence in various ways), and that there should be yet more regulations ordering people about (on top of the thousands of pages of such orders that already exist).
In his political speech Mr Williams specifically stated that people should stop seeing taxation as money taken by the threat of force, and that they should stop seeing this taxation as a negative factor for the economy (i.e. for civil society).
He might as well have said that people should stop seeing two plus two makes four – and hold instead that two plus two makes five.
The speech of Mr Williams was not just bad economics – it was also a blatent denial of the nature of reality and the laws of reasoning (although, of course, economics depends on these things).
It is easier for camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
Quite so – a camel found the eye of the needle gate into Jerusalem a tight squeeze indeed (any camel trying to get through would most likely have to be unloaded).
But a rich man has no chance at all of taking any of his “worldly goods” with him into heaven (his cargo will definately be unloaded on his death).
In short “you can not take it with you”.
Not a comforting statement I admit – but not exactly what most modern people think is being said by the lines.
What I think that some of you are failing to take into account is that Jesus is an anarchist.
The state started out as the tool by which a religion controlled its followers. The roles have swapped around a few times in the intervening years but the two remain intertwined. It should come as no surprise then that the leader of the state religion should support the state in all its endeavours.
Yes Ludwig Von Mises does make comments (lots of them) that seem to support the French Revolution.
Although, when read in context, these comments turn out to be opposition to the guild system – and support for state action to sweep this system of legal restrictions away.
Of course it was state action that made the guild system compulsory in the first place – for example the edict of Henry IV of France.
Without complusion the guilds were about as “damaging” as the “honourable companies ” were (or are) in London.
I.E. – not harmful at all, indeed a good thing (charitable institutions).
As for the rest of the French Revolution (the undermining of what was left of the distinction between the state and civil society – with all the nationalization and general plunder and murder than led to) no Mises was not a great fan.
Strong state different from a big state.
Yes there is a difference.
For example, the American government is much bigger now than it was in the 1950’s – yet it is certainly not stronger.
For example President Eisenhower ordered illegal immigants to be removed – and millions were removed within months.
These days a President could (in all honesty) issue the same order – but nothing much would happen.
The modern state is not like the French Revolutionary state – it is not “strong” in the sense of an order is given and everyone jumps to it and gets the job done.
The modern state is just “big” in the sense that the French State under Louis XVI was big – big and hopeless and a total mess and……
Actually the latter is not so bad as the former (remember the French Revolutionary state was big as well as strong), but both are no good.
Gabriel’s point about the modern Church.
Yes, in 19th century terms the modern “liberals” do ape the rituals of the Roman Catholic church (lots of smells and bells at times) rather than the rather plain services of the “Broad Church” people of the 19th century (called “liberal” in the history books).
Of course the actual broad church people of the 19th century (such as Richard Whately) had rather different political ideas than people like Rowen Williams.
They also took theology seriously (although, men like Whately sometimes had very odd religious ideas – for example that God must have invented all the basic kit of civilization, the wheel and so on, an opinion that would have struck theologians in the Middle Ages as primative and just plain daft).
Whereas Rowen Williams does not seem to give a toss about theology.
Of course the real “High Church” people are leaving the Church of England, as our many of the Protestant “Low Church” people (the “Reform” people).
That leaves the Broad Church “latitudinarian” tradition – I have some sympathy for that tradition myself (no – they were not all like Whately, good economist but thinking that God invented the wheel and so on), but we are not going to hang around with the I-am-not-a-druid either.
He will end up with just himself and the rest of the paid staff.
Oh well – the tourists will keep them company in the otherwise empty churches.
Archbishop Rowan Williams clearly has many difficulties on earthly matters and has become most politically partisan; this should surely be a concern for him and his church. One might suspect that God has hung up on the call for advice; really worrying for those looking for a spiritual lead.
Best regards
There has been a fair amount of snide swiping at Christianity here. Could someone please tell me, exactly, what it is?
I am persuaded that a successful ‘meta-context’ amounting to a complete delusion has been established which fact has eluded most of the commentators here.
If taxation is for the common good, let’s start with taxing churches.
Agreed, Darryl; no more special privileges for religious institutions. Better yet, no federal money for religious institutions.
Darryl, you just beat me to it. I was about to point out that it is very easy to advocate putting up taxes when you don’t pay tax yourself. Also highly hypocritical I would say.
That a churchman could support the use of force (i.e. state action), rather than moral choice (charity) as a way of “making society better”. Not exactly the message Jesus was peddling methinks.
He obviously has no grasp of Economics, but more worryingly, he seems to know little about Protestantism either. – RAB
I’m reminded of the Catholic charge against Luther, that if Christians were saved by grace alone they would have no incentive to do good works, and thus the system of indulgences, Purgatory, mortal and venial sins had to be maintained. Luther replied that a sinner saved by grace would love God and love his neighbour, and want to do good works, without threat of reward and punishment. Williams’ call for more taxation represents the failure of his church to influence society at large and even its own followers, hence the calls for the state to force them to do what they (arguably) should be doing voluntarily. We shouldn’t be surprised, as the whole concept of an Established church represents the failure of the church, in that, like a regulated monopoly or oligopoly, it would sacrifice autonomy for subsidies, political influence and protection from competitors.
Oooh. What *taboo* topics will you apply your razor sharp analysis to now: the divine right of kings? Perhaps you’ll go really out on a limb and dissect the political philosophy of Archbishop Laud. There are, of couse, topics that are really taboo in our society, but were I to dispute them, you’d probably have an aneurysm. How plausible, by the way, do you think it is that I have not considered your *critique* of Christianity, rather than, having done so, found it to be both theoretically and historically wanting?* Anyway, I’ll let you get back to enjoying the life of the unrestrained soaring intellect, guided only by the light of Reason, that so accurately characterises the post-Christian West.
JP
Well, obviously. However, my point was that the long-time Anglican support for the traditional constitution and the small, strong state is not remotely analagous to William’s support for the weak, behemoth progressive state we have today, nor can the former be adduced as the source of the latter. William’s disgusting comments disgrace neither Christianity in general, nor Anglicanism in particular, but only left-wing filth like himself.
If memory serves you tend to sympathise with the radical Dissenting tradition in this country and trace English libertarianism at least in part back to it. You are partly right – c.f. e.g. Spencer – but another important source of libertarian ideas comes from the High-Church Tory end of things and if either tradition has any legs (and that’s doubtful) then it’s the latter. You should remember that in 19th Century disputes between Churchman and Nonconformist all the calls to actually expnd the power of the state came from the latter and they were pretty quick to drop voluntarism in favour of statism the second it suited their interests.
*As it happens, I am not a Christian.
Quite. There is simply no actual Christian basis for such views , which is more than a minor failing for the leader of a Christian denomination (indeed my pro-liberty views were a consequence of paying attention to actual Christian thought… I subsequently abandoned Christianity due to concludeing god was a delusion… however that did not also lead me to conclude the moral theories were entirely wrong, just the ‘god’ bit).
“There has been a fair amount of snide swiping at Christianity here. Could someone please tell me, exactly, what it is?”
“That a churchman could support the use of force (i.e. state action), rather than moral choice (charity) as a way of “making society better”. Not exactly the message Jesus was peddling methinks.”
Sorry. I should have specified the “it”. I was actually asking if anyone could tell me exactly what they think Christianity is, not the snide swiping.
I can actually agree with you about pretty much all established “Church”, except some, that it is not actually about what it should be. There was a story once about a kid at an Anglican conference that gazed open mouthed at all the worthy bishops as they solemnly came in attired in full regalia complete with bishop’s crook in hand and child said: “Wow, now I know what a crook looks like.”
But dismissing the reality that Jesus brought and the reality that He exposed and presented, especially if it is done in a thoughtless and flippant manner, sky fairies et al, is to do as much dis-service to the truth as it is to be taken in by a religious con trick.
My feeling is that the only thing that helps or is worthy of attention is a love of the truth, where ever that love takes you.
It seems that being clever and/or tricky with words is what turns most people on. Not reality.
While there are some commonsense guidelines in the Bible, these are rules one finds in all human societies; without them, a society could not survive. Prohibitions against theft, murder, lying, etc; stuff like that.
I suggest one checks out The Reason Project; it is an exhaustive effort to catalog the contradictions and moral failing of every Abrahamic religion. However, I extend my criticism to all religion; to be truly free, we must abandon imagined divine masters as well as earthly ones. No-one can claim to defend individual rights on a religious basis; only a secular basis can.(Link)
The notion of moral agency is profoundly Christian in its origins. The god-thing is superfluous but it is foolish to discount or minimise where western individuality and rationalism had their roots
Good grief, Johnathan. I realize that you tend towards a militant, evangelical form of Atheism, but could you please put the bullets in your gun with the pointy end forward? The passage you are quoting is recommending (not ordering, recommending) that the listener divest himself, not his neighbor, of the trappings of luxury.
Notice he didn’t say ‘give me your possessions and I’ll decide who to give them to.’
and tdb
Golly. Silly me. Not recognizing that Jim Jones was as big of a threat to liberty as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and other fine Atheists. It really is believing a religion that makes people dangerous.
Again, silly me to not remember that God and a bunch of angels just kicked down my door and charged in with riot guns to collect taxes. We clearly must criminalize prayer lest God go getting uppity.
This is just too stupid to comprehend. Talk about (A)theological totalitarianism!
To put this in little words that you may understand. What somebody believes is none of your f’ing business. All that matters is how they interact with others. I repeat, thought purity is none of your business. If a priest violates somebody’s life liberty or property, it is that crime that must be punished, not the fact that somebody believes something without your permission.
I hold both theocrats and atheocrats in about the same contempt. Christianity is at its deepest spiritual core individual and consensual. It is quite possibly that fact that explains why the preponderance of individualism is found in societies with a Christian heritage.
Even as a lapsed Christian-turned-atheist, I would be wary of claiming that religion or religious ideas of a certain kind haven’t been fertile soil, in some respects, for a liberty-friendly culture. I haven’t the time to go into all its aspects, but if you look at different bits of the Catholic and Protestant strains of Christianity, you can find things that clearly did, at times, prove positive for liberalism: the doctrine of free will, the importance of the salvation of the individual soul, etc. On the other hand, ideas such as Original Sin, predestination, etc, clearly point in another direction. It is a mixed bag.
Gabriel writes:
If the Church of England has, in its past, been part of a worldview supporting limited, but effective government, then that is, I fear, an accident of history, not a permanent state of affairs and like all state institutions, the CoE can be easily eroded from within. We should be wary of state churches, just as we should be wary of state broadcasters. A state church becomes a complacent, flabby church, and I fear that Dr Williams is a particularly egregious example of this problem. The CoE should be left to stand on its own feet. The UK does not need an established church, any more than it needs an established comedy circuit or sporting institution.
Like I said, I am a lapsed Anglican. I no longer feel the call of the old faith, but I cannot suppress some sadness at what this in some ways quite benign institution has become.
Midwesterner, I don’t deny that Mao and Stalin were athiests, but Hitler was certainly no atheist; he was Roman Catholic. However, even granting that Hitler was an atheist, so what? That doesn’t say anything about atheism itself.
Consider H.L. Mencken; an ardent individualist and an agnostic/non-believer. He had his problems, but certainly (in the end) has no love of Hitler or the New Deal.
I’m okay with people believing, but that doesn’t stop me from considering religion as a tyranny on the human mind. Further, I have a strong dislike of the influence that the religious have over politics.
Moral agency has been a fixture in philosophy for ages, and not always with religious connotations.
MidWesterner, cool it down, right down. The idea that a rich man is some how barred from achieving redemption in a religious sense unless he gives it all up is bound, in the general sense, to feed a general worldview that regards the pursuit of material well-being as a bad thing. Much of the current Green obsessions are fuelled by this sort of mindset, and the puritanism in it is unmistakable. And there is no doubt that fatheads like Dr Williams find much of their anti-wealth, pro-state views supported by that sort of sentiment.
Since we are into quoting from the Bible, remember that bit where Christ urges folk to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s. Not much protest at heavy taxation there, is there? The best that can be said for such an approach is its support for a sort of stoic acceptance of government-backed thieving.
Bollocks to that, is how I’d respond, old chap.
Maybe, but I don’t think this is relevant. I prefer to think about this as follows: there always have been and will be people who want to control other people, and they have been using and will be using whatever means are available at that particular time. Once it was religion, then religion began losing it’s power, and so it became the state. When and if the state will lose its effectiveness, they will find something else.
tdb, it is indeed an interesting point to consider, but how important is it really? As far as I’m concerned, a libertarian is anyone who is willing to leave others alone, especially someone who is willing to help others to be left alone. If said libertarians are not entirely free themselves from my point of view, I say it is their problem, no?
Like I said, I am a lapsed Anglican. I no longer feel the call of the old faith, but I cannot suppress some sadness at what this in some ways quite benign institution has become (John Pearce)
The whole Christian; Church; Anglican; Catholic; whatever, is based on the person of the Lord Jesus. It is all about Him. Without Him having been there would be nothing to it because, well, that’s what it was all about!
But it does seem all those structures have then moved very far away from Him, and what He was about, and thus they have become rather pointless. So there is no need to feel sad. The thing that it is all actually about has not changed at all. It is all still there and all exactly the same as ever it was.
All or any of those “Christian” belief systems are actually pointless without a practical, personal relationship with Jesus.
I have almost come to celebrate my position as anarchy under God. We are indeed in a state of free will. In the physical world we find that if we do not abide with; go with; reality we come unstuck and become very un-free. Such as if we decide we are not having anything to do with gravity today and decide to float off a cliff. Similarly (but very different) if one surrenders one’s will to God one obtains the full freedom in that realm, as well. And if one ignores that reality and the safe way to deal with it one can come unstuck, indeed.
The love of the truth is the surest guide. If one wants it.
But Jonathan, I don’t know about you, but I really don’t have a problem with either Puritanism or Greenism, or for that matter any other ism, as long as it is not forced on others. Did Jesus make it look like being rich is bad? Judging from that passage I say you are correct, he did. But why is it any of your business as a non-Christian, as long as it is voluntary? Isn’t the whole point of freedom is to let others believe things, and indeed even live in ways you might not like?
Context again, Johnathan. If you are going to quote the Bible, well . . .
A rather humorous out-foxing of the IRS prosecutors, no? They were attempting to get him to commit the anti-government crime of advocating tax evasion.
Are you sure about that? Knowing full well they were attempting to put you in prison or worse?
In any case, you are missing the entire point. This is about individual consent. Puritanism is not. People will wrap themselves in any robes they can to conduct their campaigns. An individualist will focus on their actions, not their robes.
And on the topic of original sin and predestination, most people here believe something very akin to original sin. The differences are in what the response should be. Christians say everyone is born flawed and needs God to ‘save’ them. Libertarians say everyone being flawed is a good working assumption and argument for why no-one should not be given power over others. And not even all (or most?) Christians believe in predestination and it is not exclusive to religion. It is simply conventional determinism that extends into a posited afterlife.
tdb, I don’t understand your Mencken reference. FWIW, my own tendency is towards militant agnosticism. But I try to confine myself to how people interact, not what they choose to believe.
Once upon a time ago I was experimenting with writing alternate history combined with fan fiction and came up with this:
“My (lack of) God! What a f**king waste of mass and energy! The current Archbishop of Canterbury would rather quote from Marx and Engels than from Jesus Christ and he’d rather do a b***j** on an Ayatollah or a Soviet Commissar than say a kind word about Western Civilization.”
http://mopu.blogspot.com/2008/12/from-unpublished-memoirs-of-allen.html
Many are forgetting the entire concept of wealth and economics that existed in those biblical times mentioned. In those days mercantilism and heavy taxation were the norm.
Tax collection was arbitrary and the collector had the right to take whatever they saw fit. One could only be wealthy by way of inheritance and family, or theft and warfare, not by honest enterprise.
The job your father had was the job you were going to have, period. The labor market had little flexibility.
The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to not be a big reader, either of the bible or otherwise. With the exception of the collectivist rag newspapers.
This is what I find common between religious fanatics and atheist fanatics: their tendency to prescribe, not only behavior, but thought and belief. Whether it is positive or negative prescription makes no difference. This is also what bothers me about Randians. I am not saying that they have no moral right to try to peacefully influence people’s beliefs and behaviors, but personally it’s this certainty that they know the truth and what is best for everyone else just puts me off. Am I weird? (Oh, and sorry for mentioning the R word, hope it doesn’t turn the whole thread upside down).
It’s okay Alisa; it’s not like there is any “social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists” around here any more. It’s basically just a hang-out for social conservatives, traditionalists, and other assorted squares.
Or, maybe I’m painting too broad a brushstroke? It seems like all the good times happened way back when the blog got started. I’m new, but I’ve look around back then.
Mid, I don’t think that it is constructive to argue about texts written by people long dead. These things can be interpreted in any way one wishes to interpret them. I doubt Jesus was an evil statist (I rather think of him as a well-meaning hippie type), but even if he was – so what? Our job is to make sure that those evil Christians don’t force their evil ways on us, that’s all that should matter, no? Even with Islam, which I think is much more problematic (Mohammad certainly was no hippie), as soon as they throw out the whole Jihad thing, I have no problem with them either.
I rather thought that Paul Marks had nailed down the Camel and the eye of the needle bit with his post back at 5pm, but suit yourselves.
Funnily enough, that very phrase led my grandfather to walk out of the Church of Wales one sunday morning, and never come back.
He was a rich man you see, and the Vicar had preached a sermon around it. My Grandfather took it personally (this a man who had single handedly kept the food kitchens going in Caerphilly during the Great Depression, out of his own pocket).
Were you talking to me Mr Bugger?!
He is alleged to have said to the Vicar, at the ritual gladhanding on the steps upon leaving. When the vicar prevaricated, he gave him a right mouthful and joined the Presbyterians in Van Road.
Like my gramp, I dont care what you believe, just so long as you dont want to force me to believe the same.
Just like him, I am perfectly capable of being charitable, off my own bat.But dont force me to give away my money to those I think undeserving, in the name of some invisible sky fairy, because I call that theft.
Alisa, you get your ‘r’ and ‘l’ mixed up! You’re talking about a Land Valuation Tax, of course, bringing in your favourite hobbyhorse! You fanatics- you just don’t quit!
Whilst it is true that Christians are encouraged to pay taxes when they are due, this was simply to face reality- that the Romans would take it anyway. The Jews wanted a person who would lead them in revolt against the Romans, and Jesus made the realistic assessment that such was suicide (as it turned out to be, when they rebelled later). Jesus can thus be judged a realist.
As for Atheism and Libertarianism, I just read a book that explains that in nations with an established church, to rebel against the state usually means you rebel against the Church. Hence rebels in Britain tend to be atheists, whilst rebels in America, not seeing any legal link between the faiths and the state, can embrace a faith whilst rebelling against the state. So, established churches leads to atheism, and dissident churches leads to piety! I’m sure there’s a lesson there for all of us.
tdb:
You know, maybe people ought to read the Bible before bashing it. Morally conservative, sure, but what’s wrong with that, huh?
Anti-wealth, eh?
“A labourer is worthy of his hire.”
“Do not muzzle the ox while he is threshing your grain.”
“To him who has much, much will be given.”
“If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another, who will give you what is yours?”
“Now the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; for he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and one thousand female donkeys.”
Christianity is leftist *and* statist? Are you serious? The above quotes are all fairly capitalist to me, I would say. And in fact, during part of the Israelites’ rise as a nation, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)
Samuel in fact points out what a formal government will look like in 1 Samuel 8:10-19. Sounds familiar? This is the Judge telling them what a monumentally bad idea it would be to elect for themselves a king.
Demanding blind worship, eh?
1 Corinthians 15:
Isaiah 1:18
You know, it’s not as if Christians are told to just jump off a cliff because God told us to do so, or that the missionaries went around and said ‘just believe’. Persuasion through reason, intellect and logic – and yes, also through emotion and other non-tangibles – is the Christian way.
As to the Archdruid, be serious now, does anybody actually pay him any attention?
RAB: Not to mention blackmail. “Give us money or our imaginary dictator will punish you.” Yeah, no pressure.
On God/church being linked to the state. FWIW.
The state was not God’s idea in fact the establishment of the state was against what He wanted. The people simply demanded a king. I am going to risk pasting one of the relevant bits. If this is unacceptable, my apologies:
1 Samuel 8:
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 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. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. 22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
Mid, I still think you are missing the point a bit here:
But the point is, he did not advocate tax evasion, but said, in effect: obey whatever laws happen to have been imposed by the Romans/others, etc. In other words, at the core of the Christian view of the relation between church and the secular world, as it appears to me, is a fairly meek acceptance of state laws. That’s is not a good thing, IMHO.
On some other points:
Well, by Original Sin, I am not conflating it with the fairly rational argument that humans are flawed in that they have imperfect knowledge, are error-prone, etc. This fairly obvious point is, as you say, one very powerful reason why libertarians are skeptical of government powers and those wielded by the heads of any big organisation: human fallibility.
But human fallibility is very different from the idea that humans are born with sin in their bodies and minds. A sin requires an act, and a choice. A newborn baby has not even begun to understand ideas of right and wrong and responsibility for accepting choices. To say that a person can be sinful when they have done nothing or thought nothing undermines the basis for morality. It is as daft as the idea of say, Original Goodness.
Give to Caesar “what is Caesar’s”, not “what is yours”. Big difference. Only God can lay claim to all of Creation; your king can’t.
A distinction likely to be lost on many a tyrant, I am afraid. And fat comfort to anyone living under such bastards who is not convinced of the Guy in the Sky.
I think Midwesterner mentioned it, but I always tell people: “Jesus said, “Take all that you have and give it to the poor” not “Stand aside, my friends and I will take all that you have and give most of it to the poor””
Not to mention “The Lord loves a cheerful giver” and Mamonides’ eight levels of charity, of which the first, and greatest, is:
“The greatest level, above which there is no other, is to strengthen the name of another [man] by giving him a present or loan, or making a partnership with him, or finding him a job in order to strengthen his hand until he needs no longer [beg from] people.”
http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/rmbmzdkh.html
“In other words, at the core of the Christian view of the relation between church and the secular world, as it appears to me, is a fairly meek acceptance of state laws.”
Slave morality. Nietzsche had it right.
Johnathan, you missed some very important points and a question. I’ll try the quote again but I am having a bit of problem with formatting, we’ll see how it looks.
First, note “the Herodians”. That would be these Herodians who earlier:
Then you missed the part where the Pharisees said “You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are.” In this case “who they are” meant their titles and powers in society. It is quite clear that he was known as an anti-authoritarian to the people conspiring to kill him.
Another point you missed was that of the many things he could have said to get out of committing treason in front of witnesses, he said.
He turned their trap back on them in the form of a thinly disguised statement to not use Caesar’s money. He was probably one of the first people to oppose central banking 🙂
You said
but shortly later
But in fact he was then tortured to death for opposing taxes and inciting rebellion. Much is made by Atheistically pure libertarians that he said he was the son of God. The reason that claim warranted a death penalty was because the Roman Empire tolerated no higher authority than Caesar, including of course, one’s own conscience. In your denunciations of his religious beliefs, you are neglecting the meta-context of the time. They did not have the benefit of Einstein. Not even Newton would be around for another 1-1/2 millennia. They lived in a mystical world.
Earlier you said how you would have responded to those questions – “Bollocks to that, is how I’d respond, old chap.” Are you still sure of that?
I credit my upbringing in fundamentalist Christianity as the germinating seed of my libertarian individualism. The world of Biblical times was a mix of tribalism and centralized authoritarianism. The individualism and personal consent Jesus was teaching was a great threat to the power structures of that time. It is still a threat to authoritarians today and it is not by coincidence that Christianity is so vigorously attacked or co-opted in modern collectivist states. It is inextricably linked with the doctrine of personal consent.
The diligent efforts of people like you and tdb to drive away all allies that do not espouse atheism is at the very least counter-productive. Attacking Christianity because it has been the robe that many totalitarians have cloaked themselves in means that Atheism should be held to the same standard. How would it survive that comparison? It would fail utterly because the reality is that in all of its interactions between individuals, Christianity is the most individualist, consensual major religion that has ever existed. Far more so than Atheism.
You don’t trust the MSM and leftist academia to explain Mises, Bastiat, Rand, libertarianism, anarchism, etc, why do you parrot their explanations of Christian theology? Some advice for you. I don’t lecture Pa Annoyed on mathematics. I don’t lecture Paul Marks on history. I encourage you to avoid lecturing Christians on Christianity. I haven’t studied it since I was 18 years old but even I know you haven’t a clue. But I really do enjoy your articles on just about everything else.
RAB: Poaching is easily countered: “Yes, they will accept your marital vows now, but what if she dies and you want to remarry? Then what?”
Laird? Nietzsche? Seriously?
Protestantism is a Bad Word among British protestants these days, from what I’ve seen.
Well put, Mid. And mostly in those with a protestant heritage. Which should come as no surprise: the Reformation was, after all, a revolt against arbitrary power. (Of course, in England it was an arbitrary power doing the revolting, which goes a long way to explaining the CofE.)
I doubt this proves anything Mid (which is not to say that your argument doesn’t have other proofs). I think that religion or its interpretation is subject to a particular culture, not the other way around. At least at first. After a while it does become an ‘egg and chicken’ thing.
Sam:
Wasn’t Luther German?
Alisa, Atheists and agnostics have the option of being either collectivist or individualist. Christians do not. It is articulated in inflexible terms that becoming a Christian must be, 1, an individual act, and 2, a consensual act. In short, you cannot be a Christian unless you accept that one’s moral status is personal and consensual. The religion effects the society that follows it. It is more Paul Marks knowledge than mine but I suspect that liberty in Europe waxed and waned in direct proportion to the adherence to ‘red letter’ (the actual words of Christ) Christianity which is today lumped with other priorities under the title ‘fundamentalism’.
Puritanism is often labeled as ‘fundamentalism’ but you can probably guess my opinion on that, knowing that a direct ancestor of mine was executed by the Plymouth Puritans basically for insulting authority. A very unChristian authority, I might add. To varying degrees, totalitarians always don camouflage. Today they wear Green robes.
As to Luther, he was the founder of Protestantism. Search the term “the Ninety-Five Theses“.
Mid, I must be missing something. Of course I know who Luther was, my point is that he also happened to be German, Germany being the least individualist culture in Europe one can think of – this was in reply to Sam’s point. Mind you, I know much better than lecturing anyone on religion in general and Christianity in particular. And I already conceded that religion and culture are chicken-and-egg.
I thought you questioned his Protestantism. I don’t put a whole lot of weight on Sam’s assertion that it was Protestantism per se but to be fair to that possibility, Germany is in fact many nations lumped together like Yugoslavia. It is really a question for Paul Marks. Italy seems to my eye to be one of the most individualist nations in Europe. I wonder if it is a coincidence that they also make the most delicious food and the fastest cars. Hhmmm….
I see. German food is not so bad either, neither is French. English food though…
Yes, Nietzsche (since we’re citing Wikipedia). Seriously.
Cant let you get away with that one madam!
British food is very good, if cooked by someone who knows how, like my mother and wife (no not the same person, how dare you! where do you think I live, Norfolk?)
Same as other countries food really. French is really good, but not as cooked by my French aunt.
And as for Jewish food, steering the thread slightly back on course again…
Oh bloody hell Jesus! said Peter,
not loaves and fishes again??
Cant we have a pizza for a change?
RAB dear, I’ll have to descend upon you to give you the chance to put your pots and pans where your mouth is:-)
Well, Nietzsche clearly was wrong about Christianity being the meek acceptance of state laws. That is unless you think resisting while hugely outnumbered, and persisting in their practices in the face of certain and painful death, and ultimately inheriting the empire that attempted to eradicate them is ‘meek’. And equating democracy (which he presumably intended to mean unrestrained democracy, not a constitutionally restrained government attempting to protect individual rights) with Christianity (which requires an individual’s adherence to certain moral behavior no matter what threat a government may lay on them including torture and death) is another serious flaw in the model.
If you can point me to something by Nietzsche in which he declares individual autonomy rather than just saying that the only choice is between master and slave and master is better, I will (depending on how long the passage is) try to read it through with and open and inquisitive mind.
Yes, he appear to make a great many observations that I share. But so do some religions. He appears to define the essence of humanity as the “will to power” and context suggests that he includes over other people as well as one’s self. He is either declaring some sort of a secular original sin, or he approves. There is an intriguing quote here that suggests there may be more elsewhere so I am seriously asking for passages but the following quote attributed to him in that link seems to suggest some sort of original sinnish power lust that inevitably leads to warlordism. I am interested, but not interested enough to go prospecting. I have too many other books on my reading list with much greater probably of rewarding me with some found wisdom.
Hey RAB and Alisa. If you guys have a food fight, can I be a judge? I may need a lot of samples. 🙂 I reserve the right to pass on certain dishes like black pudding or whatever it’s called.
T’would be a privilege and a pleasure, dear lady 😉
One of these days RAB and Mid. We would have to have Paul there, obviously, to find out exactly how long it would take him to steer the conversation from the virtues (or lack thereof) of black pudding to the Big O’s Marxist background. On the bright side, this would mean that this splendid event will be taking place before 2012…
And what the devil (this is a religion thread after all) is ‘black pudding’ anyway?
The less said, the better.
Ahem, my dad was a butcher, and used to make the finest black puddings in South Wales, in an outhouse of our house in Caerphilly. He would probably get arrested for that alone these days, by the Elfen Safety nazis.I can smell it hubble bubblin toil and troublin in the big vat, in my minds eye even now.
Yes it is an aquired taste. But a bit of roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, some fine Welsh lamb and mint sauce, my mum’s Cawl (a lamb stew) well you just cant whack it.
What a dinner party that would be indeed!
Hopefully, one day…
Anyone who flicks through, for example, the narratives of the patriarchs for more than five minutes knows that the Bible’s attitude to wealth cannot be characterised in anything like the simple terms some people are using here. However, in as much as the Bible takes negative attitudes to the wealthy, what of it? There are sins the wealthy are particularly prone to and sins the sins the poor are particularly prone to and it would hardly be the Good Book if it just ignored one side of that now would it?
In any case, it’s hardly like the Left today is made up of the starving proles anyway (if indeed it ever was). The prime enemies of a free society in this day and age are scumbag government and QUANGO employees earning obscene money to do jobs that shouldn’t exist and their apologists in the media-*education* edifice. Biblical injunctions against greed apply just as much to them as any banker (and it’s not like bankers’ greed hasn’t assumed rather un-libertarian forms in recent years, you may have noticed.)
Another point to consider- the Bible has an argument AGAINST original sin. In Genesis, chapter 8, verse 21, God says,’…. for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth….’ Youth is not the same as birth, or childhood, so sin must be a contagion, picked up from those around you.
So Christians need to build a theology NOT based on original sin, though ordinary sin might be a thing to consider, and fight.
NG: The argument of ‘original sin’ is not that you are a sinner from birth, precisely. It’s that you have inherited a sinful nature from Adam and Eve.
That is to say, it is inherent in human nature to sin, or to choose the wrong things. Remember; the definition of ‘sin’ is disobedience against God, the putting of your own desires and wants above that of God’s, the elevation of your plans over His.
A baby is quite possibly the most selfish being on the face of the planet. Does the baby ever take into consideration *anybody else’s* feelings or plans? Not when it comes to feeding, sleeping and pooping, which arguably is all a baby does.
But, Gregory, that cannot be sinning by the baby, because Jesus would have been the same when growing up, surely? Asking for food when you are hungry is not a sin, whatever age you are!
And the Bible has no other ‘support’ for Original sin. Saint Paul made a big thing of it, but he never met Jesus in Israel, and his theology seems suspect. For instance, in one of his letters he tells the Collosians to not engage in spiritual discipline. Hadn’t Paul heard of Jesus going into the desert for forty days, and fasting?
For these reasons, I heed Paul less than other writers.
Given the choice between being a bovine rule follower in God’s Welfare State of a Garden of Eden (and I believe the choice was there to be made, yes?) over the chance to savour the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, then I am going to eat two of the goddam apples, and turn the rest of them into cider!
I favour the Aboriginal interpretation- if Adam and Eve had been Aborigines, they’d have ignored the apple, and eaten the snake!
“But a bit of roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, some fine Welsh lamb and mint sauce…”
I miss Sunday dinner – black pudding too (but not cider especially).
Midwesterner: don’t bother yourself – Nietzsche’s books aren’t designed for cherry picking (contrary to appearances), which is one of the things that sets him apart – along with the fact that he was a much subtler critic of Christianity than he is generally given credit for (e.g. Laird’s original comment was out of context). Much of the value of his writing comes from the juxtaposition of different sections. Rather than a section on “the will to power” say, it is a theme that crops up through different contexts in which he makes different points.
In general I take his “will to power” concept as descriptive – that it is, though expressed in various forms, in the nature of people. Nietzsche often expresses the view that individuals are the ultimate source of values – so his recommendations for acting in certain ways can be read against that background. There is a section called “Of The New Idol” (Zarathustra – R.J. Hollingdale, Penguin, 1977 reprint , p75-78) in which he rejects the State in favour of individual freedom in tones that probably made even Rand blush, so if you were going to read only one small part you could perhaps go with that one. Having said that, much of my Nietzsche has been lost over the years but I remember there are sections in both the Gay Science and in a Genealogy of Morality that were deeply thought-provoking for me at the time (when I was about 24).
At the risk of rabbling on here too much, there is a particular section (I forget where now), in which Nietzsche writes of his belief that if Christ could somehow have lived to see what became of his followers, that he would have repudiated his doctrine in favour of a new one. I suspect something similar would be true of Nietzsche in relation to Rand’s epistemology.
Mid, I think you are being a bit disengenous in your responses. For a start, I can obviously accept that in the “meta-context” of the time, certain phrases and expressions carried perhaps a different meaning to what they might have now, but let’s be blunt here, and go back to the original point of Perry’s post: the expression “render unto Ceasar…” etc has been clearly meant to state that certain state laws should be obeyed.
Christianity has at times taken a meek, quietist approach to government, regarding a higher, non-material world as more important. Fair enough, if that is what they want to believe. But given this, it is hardly surprising that some folk, like Dr Williams, find it quite comfortable to support government power.
Gabriel writes:
The reason why it matters, at least now, is that those Christians such as Dr Williams are focusing a lot of the Church’s energy on denouncing capitalism, material wealth, etc, and peddling the secular religions of Greenery, etc. The Bible is being held up in support of such ideas. So it is obviously worth focusing on them in debates like this.
RAB:
It is worthwhile to note that the Garden of Eden is quite possibly an anarchist’s (and even a libertarian’s) paradise, literally, as God only laid *one* rule down. And even that Adam and Eve couldn’t do right.
It is also worthwhile to note that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had fruit that was no better and no worse to eat than any of the other fruit trees in the Garden. So, you know, it wasn’t like they were striking a blow for freedom or some such.
NG:
Well, we are not made known of how Jesus acted as a baby… but it may be so. I just wanted to point out that it’s not as if babies are holy beings or anything.
It is worthwhile to note that there is an interpretation, Jewish in origin, that you are not held accountable for your sins until you reach a specific age (which the Jews celebrate by way of bar mitzvahs). But that does not mean that you do not sin – just that you are not aware of it and cannot choose of your free volition.
As for Paul, I suspect you’re speaking of Col 2, and you’re misunderstanding and misquoting him here, not to mention that it’s out of context anyways. Paul says that doing all these things merely for the sake of doing them is of no value and provides no benefit. Which is true; Jesus saves, and no amount of fasting and praying will add to that work (nor will lack thereof subtract from it). It’s worthwhile to note that Paul himself fasted and prayed, and prayed unceasingly.
As for whether or not Paul’s theology was up to scratch… he rebuked Peter once, and Peter’s response was to name Paul his brother. Can’t have been too far off message, considering that Peter’s documented response to liars was to kill them by the power of the Spirit.
Johnathan Pearce: the point is *not* exactly what you or Perry made it out to be.
Taking the whole of the Bible into account, it is clear that the authorities of the world were put there by God; i.e. He permits them to have power. As long as the laws of the land do not contradict the laws of God, Christians are to follow them. Where there is a clear conflict, Christians are to perform civil disobedience (cf Daniel and his Three Amigos Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego, for instance), and subsequently accept the consequences for the civil disobedience. But further – if Christians can work within and change the system, they they should.
Not really that different from libertarians, eh? Or are you saying that the government should have *no* powers whatsoever and make *no* laws at all? That is not libertarianism by my lights; it sounds more like anarchy and it’s been proven to not work for any lengthy period of time.
And again, really, when was the last time anybody paid any attention to the Archdruid except to curse his name? But I support wholeheartedly the effort to brain these idiotic morons who are not Christians in any shape or form by whacking them on the head with the very same Bible they abuse.
Gregory:
The part that I put in bold bothers me very much, because at best it is just an oxymoron, and at worst it is expressly anti-individualistic.
Gregory writes:
Well, if you accept the existence of God, then maybe so. However, I don’t think of laws as divinely created in that sense. (Although I am quite sympathetic to the broader, Aristotelian natural tradition which has some resonance in the Thomist tradition.)
Obviously, and a sort of tautology. But that rather begs a few questions, does it not? Such as, how do you square the Old Testament ban on thieving with the idea that one should pay whatever taxes happen to be around, which is what Mr Williams seems to be saying. (Taxation is, after all, a form of legalised theft).
Well indeed, and then that begs the question as to whether the Archbishop of Canterbury would condone such disobedience in folk refusing to pay certain taxes, does it not? I wonder if he supports refusal to pay things like the BBC licence fee tax.
Agreed. I never said otherwise.
There are minarchist libertarians – advocates of what some deride as the “nightwatchman state” and anarcho capitalists. That takes us far off the main course of the thread. What I would simply point out that government should be limited within very strict rules and it is plain that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s support for higher taxes takes him way off what I regard as acceptable to a libertarian or classical liberal conception of limited government.
Gregory, here is the logical flaw in your argument. Sin is defined as deliberately going against the will of God, and then you say that you can sin without being aware of it! But you would have to know it was wrong, and still do it, for it to be a sin!
For instance, babies have no knowledge of other people when they are born. Nor do they know Who God Is, or what he wants of us. Therefore, they are not sinning. Sin should involve volition, and making choices. Babies are neither holy or devilish.
Alisa:
Yes, well, I’m sure I’m mangling some finer point of doctrine and belief here, but below the age of 13, which is the age of accountability (and when you become an adult, so to speak), you are not held accountable for your actions, because you cannot fully comprehend the enormity of them.
It’s the same issue with the insane; the really insane, I mean. They no longer comprehend objective reality and cannot really distinguish right and wrong and hence are traditionally not held accountable for their actions. Not that I’m saying children are crazy, mind you…
Johnathan Pearce:
There we are in strict agreement. My point is simply that nobody needs to (or does, for that matter) take the Archdruid seriously. Not in matters pertaining to Christianity as a whole, or Anglicanism in particular… and if he’s useless in the areas he’s supposed to lead in, then why should anybody listen to him in matters of economic principle?
And no, not all laws are divine… but that’s a far cry from saying that the people who make the laws make them beyond God’s control. And, of course, whenever I refer to Christian doctrine *I* know it’s objective reality but I recognise not everyone treats it as such… so you can take that as a given.
NG:
Actually, sin is simply disobedience against God, period. Human law works via the principle that ignorance is no excuse, and when someone breaks the law his intent is not usually factored into the equation of his technical guilt or innocence – merely the sentencing. Of course, now the matter is changing with hate crimes and stuff like that clogging up the law books.
Furthermore, Judaeo-Christian doctrine allows for the ‘laws of God’ to be innately known (or, as Joel transcribes, be put in the hearts of men). Judaeo-Christian tradition also allows for men to have inborn natures – cf Jacob as the Supplanter even before he and Esau were born.
But I digress. My actual point is not that original sin means you have been committing sin since birth, but that you have inherited a sinful nature as part and parcel of being human. That is to say, you are inherently unable to lead a perfectly sinless life. As against your thought that sin is a communicable disease like the flu; it’s more like haemophilia.
Gregory, I know all about traditional Christian philosophy- I just disagree with it! I don’t think the Jews use the concept of original sin, either.
Tell me- are we all descended from Adam and Eve, literally? I take that to be the start of the Semitic race, but humans had been around before Adam- which is where Cain got a wife, from the tribes which he feared might kill him (“And everyone that findeth me shall slay me.”).
In human law, nobody can claim ignorance as an excuse- because everyone would claim to be ignorant if the law allowed them to do so! However, GOD would really KNOW if a soul was ignorant, OR sinning! So your argument is null and void.
NG: Your bog standard Christian response (and quite possibly Jewish one also, but I won’t swear to it) is that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on the face of the planet ever. A plain reading of Genesis 1 & 2 cannot support any other view.
Now, you gotta remember that back in the day, humans routinely lived up to 900+, so there was plenty of time for there to have been lots of people by the time Cain got hisself into trouble.
Hence, Cain married his sister. Got a problem with that? Take it up with Noah’s grandkids, who also pretty much had to marry their siblings – or at best, their first cousins. Or with Abram, who married his half-sister Sarai.
The Semitic race came from Shem. Duh. Well into Genesis (post-Flood, even).
Okay, so God makes the rules, right? And you’ll accept Jewish Scripture as controlling?
Are we happy now? Can we say that at least *some* Israelites considered humans to be a pretty bad bunch with Bad Blood right from the start?
As for what God thinks about individual humans vs humans as a group…
(Deut 3)
(1 Sam 15)
And so we have evidence that God, who really KNOWS all hearts, called for an utter destruction to the last babe, simply because said babe was an Amalekite. Mind you, this is in response to an event that happened possibly hundreds of years ago; God has a very long memory.
Again, the simple point being that our sin nature is inherited, and not transmitted through contact.
And with that, we have seriously derailed the original OP…
Gregory, I rather like your description of RW as the “Archdruid”, except that I think this gives Druids a bad rap!
Well, Gregory, from those quotes I can certainly see why some people refer to themselves as god-fearing. Certainly a miserable excuse for a deity, in my opinion, and definitely not worthy of “worship”. (Personally, I’d be more inclined toward assassination except for that inconvenient immortality thing.)
I think Lucifer (as reported by Milton, in any event) had it about right:
“To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.” [262-63]
Christianity deals with tax and government spending in some relatively explicit quotes that have somehow been missed in this thread. Eg, Welfare: 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. ”
On taxes, he argues that they are unjust, but should be paid nonetheless in Matt 17:24-27 (including a neat riff on government corruption). This is a theme you get time and again. The state, as per 1 Peter 2, is to be obeyed in the same way as an abusive slavemaster.
This is, as I understand it, broadly the way that most of the hardcore libertarians here behave. They don’t like the state, they may shave off some chunk of their taxes, jaywalk every now and again, but they obey most of the laws most of the time. Since hippy communes were unlikely to prosper in Iudea a couple of decades before a mutual ethnic cleansing and genocide that shocked the Romans, this seems about as libertarian as could be hoped for.
While Christ does say that it is extremely difficult, even impossible, to get into heaven as a rich man, he also repeatedly says that it’s difficult, even impossible, for everyone. One bad thought is enough. Fortunately we have salvation, yadda yadda yadda. You can see in his practice that he does not frown upon wealth particularly (see, eg. his very kind treatment of many wealthy people, Jairus, the Centurion, etc., without suggesting that they divest themselves).
In order to “be perfect”, the dude should give all his money away. Likewise, the “perfect” state of sexual activity is chastity. Nonetheless, for most people, it is “better to marry than to burn”.
The problem for people like Williams is that they hear that Jesus was willing to be associated with tax collectors and sinners, and they come to believe that he must have wanted more sins committed and more taxes collected.
RAB and Alisa – I would be happy to have dinner with you, although (in this life) I think it would be difficult to organize as we live so far apart.
I like Black Pudding as it happens – but someone of the Jewish faith might like to avoid it.
I might try and lay off politics – and bore you all about theology and philosophy instead.
Midwestener is quite right – I am NOT a trained economist (there is nowhere in Britain that could provide such a training), I do know a bit about philosophy (although Dr Gabb says he would use a red pen on all my “errors” – fair enough, I hold the same negative opinon of his writings on matters of philosophy), enough to be able to know that the Austrian School were correct in the “War of Method” of the 19th century – the rest really flows from there.
Never say ‘never’ Paul – except for being able to bore any of us.
I would like to know where my posts on this thread have gone?
What posts? I even checked the spam trap to see if the mean old smite bot ate them… nada
Once again, Gregory, you reveal yourself to be a bog-christian. If you read Genesis Chapter 1, you will see all of mankind (male and female) have been given dominion of all the Earth- they are not shut up in a small patch of it called Eden. At the end of Day 6, God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
However, the Eden project is another story! Adam and Eve lose their innocence, and are expelled from Eden into the world. They had not been created immortal, and God didn’t want them to eat life-fruit from the other tree in the middle of the Garden. There is no ‘it was very good’, at the end of THIS intrusion into worldly matters.
Where you see two versions of the same event, comparing the texts reveals two different events.
And David’s belief that he was a sinner from birth, as revealed in the psalms, doesn’t carry as much weight as a verse from one of the five books of Moses. Since Genesis has God saying that man is a sinner from his youth up, I’ll listen to God, thank you!
Also, there are giants before the flood, and there are giants After the flood! Moses, in deuteronomy, talks of Og, king of Bashan, as being a remnant of the giants. The same giants that are supposed to have been wiped out by the flood! Did Noah keep a breeding pair of giants as exotic animals?
You are welcome at my table anytime Paul.
I don’t like Black Pudding as it happens, I know my dad used to make them, but I was only winding Mid up!
I should have bought you a Fulgonni’s ice cream when we were in Porthcawl. Finest I ever tasted, courtesy of the Italian immigrants that we had in S Wales that ran all the cafes.
The God botherers are still at it then I see! Sigh.
My reaction to people (like Nuke and Gregory) discussing their religion is approximately the same as my response to a couple of neighbors waxing poetic about how wonderful their cat is. ‘I’m glad it fills some obvious void in your life but if I find it at my bird feeder, it will be met with extreme prejudice.’
Johnathan clearly believes that even well behaved cats must be banned.
Let’s review. In chronological sequence, the Pharisees and Herodians begin conspiring to kill Jesus. Then the Pharisees and Herodians attempt to get Jesus to openly advocate tax evasion in front of hostile and well connected witnesses. Then he is brought before Herod and Pilate and two of the three(?) named charges against him are advocating tax evasion and inciting rebellion. Then Herod and Pilate wash their hands of the matter, one figuratively – one literally, and send him to crucifixion.
Now Johnathan has claimed and refused to withdraw his claim that at the second point when, in front of hostile and well connected witnesses, the Pharisees and Herodians asked Jesus about paying taxes, he/Johnathan would have replied “Bollocks to that!” It should be crystal clear from context that Johnathan would have chosen immediate martyrdom with those heroic words. Kind of silly timing and an odd epitaph if you ask me but hey, it’s his martyrdom.
But where it gets interesting is that our self avowed martyr Johnathan has found condemnable fault with Jesus charging that
Well the record shows that of the 3 crimes mentioned in Luke 23, advocating tax evasion is the first charge made and inciting rebellion was also charged.
I don’t expect people to know Biblical record, but if they insist on citing and explaining it I suggest two things. Lose the pompous, condescending arrogance peppered with rather obvious assertions that their moral courage is superior to Jesus’, and at least make an effort get their facts straight.
The case is strong that the single biggest force for individualism in all of history is found in the root nature of Christianity as a religion of individual choice and consent. The record shows that long before Islam, ‘civilized’ society was stoning women to death for ‘sin’. We know this because Jesus interfered with and stopped at least one such stoning. To say that he was too passive when facing the power structures of the time and that he preached passivity to authority is, in light of his fate and that of the early followers, willful and determined blindness. I guess it just doesn’t fit the Atheist narrative.
What any of us do among each other as consenting adults, whether it is keeping cats, worshiping a god or taking hits off a bong, is absolutely nobody else’s business until it moves past persuasion and resorts to force against the non-consenting. Militant atheists sound just like the prohibitionists of the alcohol variety. It is not enough that they personally refrain, they never let a chance to attack Christians pass. Just as every harm caused by every drunk becomes a reason to ban, regulate and wage wars against any consumption of alcohol, every collectivist act by somebody who makes an issue of their ‘Christianity’ is used to wage attacks against Christians who are not engaging in, and may even be actively opposing collectivism. Why do you think power seekers are always waving the Cross and the US flag? It is because those two institutions, Christianity and the US Constitution, are the two of the most effective individualist entities in history. They are the best camouflage for a despot.
I am an individualist. I judge every person not by their labels and claims, but by their own individual acts against people who do not consent to those acts.
So all of Christendom is to be attacked for the actions of one? It is surprising and appalling to find this collective lumping together of such extremely disparate individuals so baldly stated by someone who espouses individualism so persistently and persuasively in virtually all other categories. And FWIW, unless I’ve entirely misread Perry’s post and his point, it was sarcastically dripping green with derision that this man Williams purports to be Christian. In the linked article I found only one (unquestionably true) reference to Christian doctrine.
“Three-dimensional”! I’ve now learned a new and visually descriptive euphemism for ‘collective’. So, uh, yeah. Not necessary at all. And do we give an award for understatement?
Now, now, Midwesterner, you can see that JP was okay with my description of RW as the Archdruid. Which he is, btw, so I’m not going to budge from it. If the druids don’t like him, they can repudiate him.
I did in fact forget about that. Christianity is required to be an individual choice – especially true in Anglican liturgy, where baptism and confirmation are expressedly linked as each person is required to affirm the vows for himself or herself.
But anyways, what about keeping cats? Hate the nasty creatures myself, would rather drown them at birth except I’m too lazy. I don’t recall JP banning discussion of religion, though – actually, I myself thought we were derailing it rather too far from the OP, as stated.
RAB: Yes, unfortunately, the God-botherers are still at it. And, it would see, the RAB-botherers also.
However, as this is a thread on Christianity being linked to the State, one must expect elements of both being discussed. And as humans all have different priorities of agendas, one must also expect different aspects being brought up.
Having said that, I think it clear NG and myself have a fundamental disconnect on whether Man is born to sin. As such, I think this God-botherer shall return to work…
See Gregory, I also rather dislike cats, but drowning them at birth? What is it with people? Sigh.
“What any of us do among each other as consenting adults, whether it is keeping cats, worshiping a god or taking hits off a bong, is absolutely nobody else’s business until it moves past persuasion and resorts to force against the non-consenting.”
That seems like a good place to end this. Can’t imagine anyone here disagreeing with it.
Alisa, you have stumbled upon one of our hidden pass-times. Christians love drowning cats! Why do you think Cat Stevens became a muslim?
Can I finally lay this thread to rest please folks,
Tree Williams, and his unbeliefs, really doesn’t deserve this much of our time…
A little riff from the late great Bill Hicks.
Well Eve, here we are in the Garden of Eden
We will never age, we will never die…
Our every wish and desire God will grant us instantly…
Yes I know Adam, but it just isn’t good enough, is it?