So I really want to talk about that debate, but first I want to iron out one more thing on the topic of #EndAbortionNow. This angle on the topic was brought to my attention by my lovely and excellent wife, Chowon.
My objection to #EndAbortionNow, on the 14th of this month, was that they are attempting to conform the government to Biblical Law by advocating an incremental change to the government as a whole, whereas they decry incremental changes in the area of abortion on the grounds that abortion is opposed to Biblical Law. To be clear, I am of the opinion that #EndAbortionNow is the best and most consistent anti-abortion movement to date. I recognize that in their general discourse they do advocate "a return to Biblical standards" in America, they are solid theonomists, my brothers and sisters in Christ for which I have the utmost respect and love, and I am 100% in agreement with the idea that abortion should be stopped immediately. I would not by any means tell them to stop what they're doing, but I want to encourage them to perhaps apply their worldview more thoroughly, if not more consistently, in the way they go about attempting to change politics and law.
In this blog, I want to take a closer look at the implications of this distinction, between advocating change to individual laws and advocating a change to the entire system. I'm picking on #EndAbortionNow because I know that they are theonomists, and I honestly don't think there are very many of us out there, so if anyone might be able to sympathize with me, then I think it's them.
The top 5 reasons for wanting an abortion, according to a few studies (here's a website), were:
1. Unready
2. Can't afford a baby
3. Done having children
4. Don't want to be a single parent
5. Not mature enough to be a parent
-- and for the record, the top 3 outweigh all others by a significant percent.
I want to suggest the following:
A. These are legitimate reasons for a newly pregnant woman to be distressed about her circumstance, (although not legitimate reasons to murder), and they need to be addressed
B. Biblical law addresses and resolves these issues directly, and in good ways
C. American law does not provide any good resolution for these issues
After some discussion of those points, I will conclude that if abortion is made illegal right now without also immediately conforming the rest of the government to Biblical law, then both the mother and the father will be made vulnerable to cascading legal injustices.
Alright, so first let's talk a little about the way that U.S. law handles the situation, and what injustices would take place if abortion were made immediately illegal without a complete overhaul of the government. To save space, because I tend to write long blogs, I'm going to just give one example. I think this example categorically touches "reasons" 1, 2, 4, and 5. I think the situation in this example is not too uncommon to be used in argument.
I want to take a look at the case where a young unmarried person becomes pregnant, and the boyfriend refuses or is unable to marry or provide, and perhaps threatens to abandon her on account of the baby. Many (most?) states require the father to provide child support if the baby is born, and if he is unable to pay then he may be put in jail, or he may be simply commanded to make the payments in the future, or on a certain schedule. Jail itself is an unjust penalty, not beneficial for the inmate who is surrounded by other criminals for an extended time, expensive for the taxpayers who feed him, and not mentioned as a penal sanction in any part of Biblical Law. Furthermore, if he is put in jail or never pays child support, then the woman receives nothing from him. The compulsion for men to pay child support is weak, and the penalty if he doesn't is counterproductive. As it would stand, in the case where a new mother, identifying that the man will seek to abandon her, decides to pursue abortion illegally, but without the man pressuring her to do so directly, she alone would be penalized. It's unjust to penalize only the mom, and to so weakly compel the father to provide, because the man must be required to take responsibility for his role in producing the child. The role of justice is to make the victim whole again, and to penalize the criminal in a way that restores the land and deters other would-be criminals. In short, U.S. Law minus legal abortion does not justly hold the father accountable for his role in the production of this new life, it doesn't make the woman whole again, and it doesn't deter other would-be unsupportive fathers. But this point is difficult to really demonstrate without comparing it against the Biblical standard.
Let's look at the way that the Bible addresses the issue.
I have to start by addressing the most obvious thing, (don't give up and stop reading when I say) abstinence. If you're not ready to have kids, even by accident, the Bible makes it pretty clear that you shouldn't be having sex (do I need to cite verses for this?), and if you are overcome by physical passions, then you should get married (1 Cor 7:9), and if you're married, then you shouldn't be holding back (1 Cor 7:5, Mal 2:15). There's no such thing as consequence-free sex.
Now let's get into what I really wanted to talk about: holding the father accountable in a just way, and in a way which protects the woman and ensures that she and the baby will be provided for.
In scripture, if two consenting unmarried people have sex, then they are required to get married, except if the woman's father forbids it. Biblical marriage involves the father of the bride giving a dowry to the newly married couple (Gen 24:53, 1 Kings 9:16, Matt 28:18), and the husband of the bride giving a bride price to his new father-in-law (Gen 31, 24:12, 1 Sam 18:25, Ex 22:16-17)[*see note at bottom about "bride price"]. After the marriage, the woman has "marital rights", including food, clothing, money, and self-sacrificing love, which the husband must provide for her (Ephesians 5:25-33, Exodus 21:10). If the husband fails to provide for her, she is allowed to divorce him (Exodus 21:11 demonstrates this for the case of a wife who was taken while she was a slave; if she divorces, then her debts are forgiven as part of the divorce). There is no legal requirement for a father to give a dowry, but the legal requirement for a bride price is expressed in several passages. Women in the Bible are legal co-owners of the family property (Numbers 27, Proverbs 31). If they divorce, she may take half of of his assets with her.
If an unmarried woman becomes pregnant by consensual intercourse, then she and the man are required to get married, and he is required to provide for her per the laws above. If the father of the bride refuses to give his daughter to the man, then the man still has to pay the bride price. (Exodus 22:16-17)
If she is betrothed, and is raped, then the rapist gets the death penalty (Deut 22:25). If she is not betrothed, and is raped, then the rapist is legally bound to her family. He has to pay her parents the bride price, and then he has to pay a fine of 50 shekels of silver** to the father, he has to marry her, and the man cannot ever initiate a divorce (Deut 22:28-29). The father may refuse to give his daughter to the man, as he is capable of negating any oath taken by members of his family until they are given away by him in marriage (Ex 22:16-17, Numbers 30). In this marriage, as stated above, the father of the bride is not required to give a dowry, and the wife is not restricted from initiating divorce. If she chooses to divorce him, as stated above, she will take a portion of his assets with her in addition to what he already lost in the bride price and the fine. If he is unable to pay the bride price and the fine, in accordance with the rules about failure to pay off debts, he becomes a slave to the father of the bride at a state-defined wage until the fine is paid off.
Now, I know that atheists like to portray these laws by paraphrasing them as "you must marry your rapist", but if you look at the way this practically works out, the man is put at the mercy of the bride's family. Not to mention, the way atheists summarize this is just plain inaccurate, because the father can refuse to let her marry him and she can initiate a divorce. Let's do a quick comparison:
In America, a rapist is put in jail for a period of time. For the entirety of his sentence, the bride and her family pay for his food, bedding, and clothing with their taxes. He is surrounded by other criminals for a few years, and then he returns to society a hardened man who has difficulty finding employment. The bride's family is harmed by the offense, and then they are forced to pay again for it in taxes, and society doesn't benefit from his time in jail. Under Biblical law, the rapist has to pay the bride's family a bride price, plus 3 years wages, plus half of his remaining assets, and if he can't afford it immediately then he pays it off by becoming the slave of the bride's father. Which one gives back to the bride's family? Which one is more burdensome on society?
So, to bring this back around, my point is that the man has certain responsibilities which he must justly perform for any woman who he has sex with. To simply demand that a woman should not be legally allowed to murder her children without also demanding that a man must be legally required to take responsibility for his actions in the matter, is neglectful to the woman and her family. I'm completely in favor of saving the baby, and justice has to be done fully, not in part.
But here's the thing. Suppose we make abortion illegal and we also enact all the Biblical the laws mentioned above in this blog. In that case, we would still be exposing people to further injustice for lack of other intertwined Biblical Laws which I haven't even mentioned here! (For example, imagine implementing slavery as a penalty without first defining the parameters around it, such as the rules limiting physical punishment on slaves, the rules about how slaves can't be kept for more than 7 years, and the rules about how slaves can't be people who were kidnapped and sold, and how the kidnapper and any person found in possession of the victim are given the death penalty.) God doesn't deal in partial packages. If you change gravity a little bit, then everything falls apart. Justice, like all the rest of God's reality, is a complete package. If you change justice on one point, then it is no longer justice (James 2:10).
So, to conclude, it's not acceptable to correct the U.S. law on just one point, even though it is a very important point. The only way to approach this is to advocate the complete removal and replacement of all U.S. laws with Biblical laws.
---------------
Notes:
*The practice of paying a bride price does not imply or necessitate any objectification of the woman. Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that women are to be seen as a commodity. In fact, a virtuous woman is said to be priceless (Proverbs 31:10); the language used to describe her parallels the language used to describe Wisdom itself (Proverbs 3:15, Job 28:15-17). Instead, the bride-price fulfills the responsibility of the bride to care for her parents on her behalf, and reimburses (in part or full) the dowry. A careless and uninformed atheist may attempt to rebut this point by quoting Leviticus 27, which describes the price to buy back people who have been dedicated to God, and which effectively penalizes men more than women for otherwise neglecting their responsibilities toward God.
**The fine in this case was 50 shekels, which is about 575 grams of silver according to my footnotes. The value of a shekel varied significantly over time and location, but to give us an idea we can look at the value of a denarius, which was 4.5 grams of silver. From what information I can find, 1 denarius would cover 10 days worth of food for a soldier, and was reasonably close to 2 days pay. Applying this back, the bride price required in this case can be said to have been just over 3 years wages.
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Monday, August 27, 2018
I realized recently that I seem to have a revolving set of viewers. I seem to typically generate between 3 and 12 views per post. Google tells me the country of origin of my viewers, the browser they use, and their operating system. Views on consecutive posts seem to have, predictably, the same viewer statistics, as long as they are on the same topic (in my mind, topics I generally cover include philosophical arguments, scientific arguments, poetry, politics, and personal life). The topic I discuss generally depends on my mood and environment.
Well, anyway, since I'm able to identify that my viewership changes regularly, I've been thinking that there's no harm in repeating myself from time to time.
But before I get into repeating myself, allow me to repeat myself. I've made this point before, but in light of my previous blog, I'd like to make it again in brief. In my previous blog, I talked about secession from the American government; at best, on the terms that they haven't provided sufficient structural freedom to local governing authorities; at worst, on the terms that they are godless.
I anticipate that some will object by citing Romans 13, which states that we should submit to governing authorities inasmuch as they are instituted by God and derive their authority from God. The short form of the rebuttal to this argument is that Romans 13 defines "authority" in terms which are incompatible with the current form of authority in the U.S. when it says, "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong". Now, we know that the Bible defines right from wrong. So, that is to say, when we want to apply Romans 13 to some human who claims authority, we should ask ourselves, "Does this person/group hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong?". If the answer is "no" to that question, then the person or group is not a ruler.
As a caveat to that, I do not deny that God utilizes wicked governments to penalize the world. I'll be the first to cite Isaiah 10, "Assyria is the rod of my anger". God used Assyria to punish Israel, and then God punished Assyria for their wickedness. So, Assyria was temporarily granted authority by God. However, God preserved a remnant, which did not bow the knee to Assyria's gods. The remnant outlives the tyranny of Assyria and re-establishes righteous government in the wake of its destruction.
The paradox in my mind is, how does the Bible at once say, "love...against such things there is no law", and then say, "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, on these two commandments the whole law is built." If God's standard of perfection is love, and if the law is God's standard for perfection, and if then the Law of God which tells me to "rescue those who are going to slaughter" is an extrapolation from love, then why does the law in the U.S. forbid me from blocking the way to an abortion clinic (for example)? It would appear that there is a law against loving my neighbor.
Here is where we find another precedent in the Bible. "I looked for a man to repair the wall and stand in the breach..." (Ezekiel 22). Unjust laws are a breach in the walls which otherwise defend us from the wrath of God. I'd like to suggest that the dividing line between coexisting with tyranny and standing in the breach is drawn on the near side of laws which punish good and promote evil. At that point, the remnant of God openly disobeys the government in the land (Daniel 3, Acts 5:29), and if that land is so blessed as to have sufficient concentration of Christians that they can locally execute just law, then they are able to create for themselves a walled city, with just laws protecting them from God's wrath. So if we believe that we are really Christian, then we've got no recourse except to suppose that we are the remnant of God. Christians, why should we pull the wall back to protect only our families, rather than establishing the city of God and placing that wall around our entire neighborhood?
Lastly, I want to respond to the all-too-common objection, "the world is in bad shape. It will never happen". That's a ridiculous prophesy, an example of the kind of thinking which has inhibited the greater good since the birth of the modern government. It's self-fulfilling. If everybody refuses to do something on the grounds that "it will never be done", then in fact it will never be done. But great change requires individual decisions to be different; to act in spite of the odds. Brothers and sisters, do we really believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God told us what his perfect standards of justice are, and that God then declared to us that His law is good and carries with it his blessings for prosperity and general equity? If we really believe that, then it doesn't make sense for us to advocate anything else. And if we believe that it is sin to act differently from God's expressed commands, then it doesn't make sense for us to submit to anything less than God's Law. By refusing to even attempt good on the grounds that it is likely to be temporally unsuccessful, we deprive ourselves and our children of a better world.
I hoped to comment on a debate I recently watched between a Christian and some atheists, but I'll save that for my next blog because this one is long enough.
"Choir inside and it sings to the king; to the king; to the king."
Well, anyway, since I'm able to identify that my viewership changes regularly, I've been thinking that there's no harm in repeating myself from time to time.
But before I get into repeating myself, allow me to repeat myself. I've made this point before, but in light of my previous blog, I'd like to make it again in brief. In my previous blog, I talked about secession from the American government; at best, on the terms that they haven't provided sufficient structural freedom to local governing authorities; at worst, on the terms that they are godless.
I anticipate that some will object by citing Romans 13, which states that we should submit to governing authorities inasmuch as they are instituted by God and derive their authority from God. The short form of the rebuttal to this argument is that Romans 13 defines "authority" in terms which are incompatible with the current form of authority in the U.S. when it says, "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong". Now, we know that the Bible defines right from wrong. So, that is to say, when we want to apply Romans 13 to some human who claims authority, we should ask ourselves, "Does this person/group hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong?". If the answer is "no" to that question, then the person or group is not a ruler.
As a caveat to that, I do not deny that God utilizes wicked governments to penalize the world. I'll be the first to cite Isaiah 10, "Assyria is the rod of my anger". God used Assyria to punish Israel, and then God punished Assyria for their wickedness. So, Assyria was temporarily granted authority by God. However, God preserved a remnant, which did not bow the knee to Assyria's gods. The remnant outlives the tyranny of Assyria and re-establishes righteous government in the wake of its destruction.
The paradox in my mind is, how does the Bible at once say, "love...against such things there is no law", and then say, "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, on these two commandments the whole law is built." If God's standard of perfection is love, and if the law is God's standard for perfection, and if then the Law of God which tells me to "rescue those who are going to slaughter" is an extrapolation from love, then why does the law in the U.S. forbid me from blocking the way to an abortion clinic (for example)? It would appear that there is a law against loving my neighbor.
Here is where we find another precedent in the Bible. "I looked for a man to repair the wall and stand in the breach..." (Ezekiel 22). Unjust laws are a breach in the walls which otherwise defend us from the wrath of God. I'd like to suggest that the dividing line between coexisting with tyranny and standing in the breach is drawn on the near side of laws which punish good and promote evil. At that point, the remnant of God openly disobeys the government in the land (Daniel 3, Acts 5:29), and if that land is so blessed as to have sufficient concentration of Christians that they can locally execute just law, then they are able to create for themselves a walled city, with just laws protecting them from God's wrath. So if we believe that we are really Christian, then we've got no recourse except to suppose that we are the remnant of God. Christians, why should we pull the wall back to protect only our families, rather than establishing the city of God and placing that wall around our entire neighborhood?
Lastly, I want to respond to the all-too-common objection, "the world is in bad shape. It will never happen". That's a ridiculous prophesy, an example of the kind of thinking which has inhibited the greater good since the birth of the modern government. It's self-fulfilling. If everybody refuses to do something on the grounds that "it will never be done", then in fact it will never be done. But great change requires individual decisions to be different; to act in spite of the odds. Brothers and sisters, do we really believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God told us what his perfect standards of justice are, and that God then declared to us that His law is good and carries with it his blessings for prosperity and general equity? If we really believe that, then it doesn't make sense for us to advocate anything else. And if we believe that it is sin to act differently from God's expressed commands, then it doesn't make sense for us to submit to anything less than God's Law. By refusing to even attempt good on the grounds that it is likely to be temporally unsuccessful, we deprive ourselves and our children of a better world.
I hoped to comment on a debate I recently watched between a Christian and some atheists, but I'll save that for my next blog because this one is long enough.
"Choir inside and it sings to the king; to the king; to the king."
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
So, if I don't precisely characterize agreement with Theonomy as a political and ethical theory, then I'm very, very sympathetic to it. But I don't know if I can really identify with the movement or not, because I'm not sure if the adherents to that view are extreme enough for me. I'll explain.
I generally think that it's a good idea to try hard to take my worldview to its logical end or extremes, and then ask myself, "Does this still seem true? Do I still agree with this?". If I find that the answer is "no", then I need to find out why. The way I see it, in that scenario I have a few options (which are not mutually exclusive): A) I'm making an emotional objection, not based on fact, B) I'm wrong about my source material, or C) my source material is wrong about reality. On the other hand, if examination yields that the answer is "yes", then it's very important that I apply these "next logical steps" to my life -- because truth matters.
So here's what I've been thinking. I agree with the Theonomists when they say that OT Law, with its fulfillment by Jesus Christ in mind, is the very same imminent morality which defines and divides all right from wrong, justice from injustice. We all agree that the Bible is the Most Just Law, as defined by The Perfect and Most Just Law Giver, God. It is for this reason that I do not agree with them when they say things to the effect that, "...therefore we need to restore America's adherence to the constitution".
I understand that they make this kind of statement on the grounds that the American constitution was drafted by Christians and based on Biblical principles. However, it seems to me that the constitution is on the one hand extremely vague, if it is indeed intended to bind people to the Biblical Law, and on the other hand it is contrary to Biblical law on certain points as I understand them (namely the religious test for office).
So, if our intent is to bring people in line with Biblical Law, then rather than saying, "...therefore we need to restore America's adherence to the constitution", it seems to me that a more productive statement would be, "...therefore we need to reform America so that its entire government conforms to the model defined for us in Holy Scripture."
The thing that brought this to my mind also serves as an example of the way this works out in practice. I was meditating to refine my worldview, and Apologia Chuch's campaign, #EndAbortionNow came to my mind. It's a righteous campaign with which I wholeheartedly agree on principle. Abortion should be ended "now, completely" and not "later, incrementally". But by what means?
Why do they appeal specific Biblical laws to a government which is not fundamentally Biblical? Granted, it may be "more Biblical" than other governments, and it may even be rooted in good intentions or Biblical sentiments, but I don't see any lawyer appealing to Scripture in his case, nor any member of the judiciary appealing to Scripture in his judgments. They appeal to the law of America, which is not the Bible because it is different from the Bible. So, when #EndAbortionNow petitions the government to conform its laws to Biblical Law, they petition it to make only a partial change, and they petition the government to utilize an extra-Biblical process (the American legislative process) to perform the change.
What they're doing, in effect, is campaigning for incremental changes to the government, as opposed to demanding the immediate implementation of Just Law. Sure, they don't want incremental changes in the area of Abortion, but by campaigning for the addition of individual laws to an inherently non-Biblical system, they're advocating an incremental change to the entire standard.
Now, in either case, there's a major road block in their way. The Government at this time seems to be comprised primarily of nonChristians, whereas God commands, "Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite." (Deuteronomy 17:15b). -- Now, bear in mind that the Bible defines elsewhere that "Israelites" are the Covenant people, descended from Abraham by Covenant and not by flesh (Romans 9:8). So the "Foreigner" in this scenario is any nonbeliever, and a careful examination of OT Law and prophesy reveals that this was, without a doubt, the original intent of the law, even in those days. -- So to demand that a government comprised of nonbelievers conform itself to Biblical law is a contradiction in terms. Either the entire government would have to first accept Jesus Christ as Lord, or the composition of the government would have to be replaced entirely.
That's what I'm suggesting. An outright rejection of the entire American government, in favor of small groups of Christians who establish their own local governments, derive their own currency from the Biblical standards for value and measures, and execute justice locally. To be clear, I do not advocate any kind of violence, nor any kind of subterfuge. No violence. No lies. No tricks.
Unfortunately, execution of Biblical law in such a community would eventually be contrary to American Law. Things would get quite complicated, and it might be very difficult to do it righteously. If it can't be done righteously, then it shouldn't be done. What I long for, then, is a community isolated from secular supervisory forces which harm the innocent and penalize us for acting according to our conscience. A separate country; a new land, where the Biblical standards can be studied carefully and implemented directly as law.
"Behold, I long for your precepts...for my hope is in your rules."
"I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
and shall not be put to shame,
for I find my delight in your commandments,
which I love."
"When I think of your rules from of old,
I take comfort, O Lord.
Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked,
who forsake your law."
"The law of your mouth is better to me
than thousands of gold and silver pieces."
"Let your mercy come to me, that I may live;
for your law is my delight."
-- Excerpts from Psalm 119
[P.S. I'm adding this here so I don't forget. I had some thoughts about the fundamental principles of reason, or the Laws of Thought, as presented in scripture, notably starting with the Law of Identity.]
I generally think that it's a good idea to try hard to take my worldview to its logical end or extremes, and then ask myself, "Does this still seem true? Do I still agree with this?". If I find that the answer is "no", then I need to find out why. The way I see it, in that scenario I have a few options (which are not mutually exclusive): A) I'm making an emotional objection, not based on fact, B) I'm wrong about my source material, or C) my source material is wrong about reality. On the other hand, if examination yields that the answer is "yes", then it's very important that I apply these "next logical steps" to my life -- because truth matters.
So here's what I've been thinking. I agree with the Theonomists when they say that OT Law, with its fulfillment by Jesus Christ in mind, is the very same imminent morality which defines and divides all right from wrong, justice from injustice. We all agree that the Bible is the Most Just Law, as defined by The Perfect and Most Just Law Giver, God. It is for this reason that I do not agree with them when they say things to the effect that, "...therefore we need to restore America's adherence to the constitution".
I understand that they make this kind of statement on the grounds that the American constitution was drafted by Christians and based on Biblical principles. However, it seems to me that the constitution is on the one hand extremely vague, if it is indeed intended to bind people to the Biblical Law, and on the other hand it is contrary to Biblical law on certain points as I understand them (namely the religious test for office).
So, if our intent is to bring people in line with Biblical Law, then rather than saying, "...therefore we need to restore America's adherence to the constitution", it seems to me that a more productive statement would be, "...therefore we need to reform America so that its entire government conforms to the model defined for us in Holy Scripture."
The thing that brought this to my mind also serves as an example of the way this works out in practice. I was meditating to refine my worldview, and Apologia Chuch's campaign, #EndAbortionNow came to my mind. It's a righteous campaign with which I wholeheartedly agree on principle. Abortion should be ended "now, completely" and not "later, incrementally". But by what means?
Why do they appeal specific Biblical laws to a government which is not fundamentally Biblical? Granted, it may be "more Biblical" than other governments, and it may even be rooted in good intentions or Biblical sentiments, but I don't see any lawyer appealing to Scripture in his case, nor any member of the judiciary appealing to Scripture in his judgments. They appeal to the law of America, which is not the Bible because it is different from the Bible. So, when #EndAbortionNow petitions the government to conform its laws to Biblical Law, they petition it to make only a partial change, and they petition the government to utilize an extra-Biblical process (the American legislative process) to perform the change.
What they're doing, in effect, is campaigning for incremental changes to the government, as opposed to demanding the immediate implementation of Just Law. Sure, they don't want incremental changes in the area of Abortion, but by campaigning for the addition of individual laws to an inherently non-Biblical system, they're advocating an incremental change to the entire standard.
Now, in either case, there's a major road block in their way. The Government at this time seems to be comprised primarily of nonChristians, whereas God commands, "Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite." (Deuteronomy 17:15b). -- Now, bear in mind that the Bible defines elsewhere that "Israelites" are the Covenant people, descended from Abraham by Covenant and not by flesh (Romans 9:8). So the "Foreigner" in this scenario is any nonbeliever, and a careful examination of OT Law and prophesy reveals that this was, without a doubt, the original intent of the law, even in those days. -- So to demand that a government comprised of nonbelievers conform itself to Biblical law is a contradiction in terms. Either the entire government would have to first accept Jesus Christ as Lord, or the composition of the government would have to be replaced entirely.
That's what I'm suggesting. An outright rejection of the entire American government, in favor of small groups of Christians who establish their own local governments, derive their own currency from the Biblical standards for value and measures, and execute justice locally. To be clear, I do not advocate any kind of violence, nor any kind of subterfuge. No violence. No lies. No tricks.
Unfortunately, execution of Biblical law in such a community would eventually be contrary to American Law. Things would get quite complicated, and it might be very difficult to do it righteously. If it can't be done righteously, then it shouldn't be done. What I long for, then, is a community isolated from secular supervisory forces which harm the innocent and penalize us for acting according to our conscience. A separate country; a new land, where the Biblical standards can be studied carefully and implemented directly as law.
"Behold, I long for your precepts...for my hope is in your rules."
"I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
and shall not be put to shame,
for I find my delight in your commandments,
which I love."
"When I think of your rules from of old,
I take comfort, O Lord.
Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked,
who forsake your law."
"The law of your mouth is better to me
than thousands of gold and silver pieces."
"Let your mercy come to me, that I may live;
for your law is my delight."
-- Excerpts from Psalm 119
[P.S. I'm adding this here so I don't forget. I had some thoughts about the fundamental principles of reason, or the Laws of Thought, as presented in scripture, notably starting with the Law of Identity.]
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Did another GRE practice essay tonight. I think I made a mistake here by saying "social security benefits" when I should have said "401K", and I'm not certain if it has happened, or if the government just gave itself the legal authority to do it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the GRE won't be fact-checked, because they aren't giving me the freedom to get online and research my facts during the test, they said they want examples, and I really don't know that much about the prompt topic except that I have a principled disagreement with whoever said it.
I timed myself this time, and I had my phone next to me with the timer. But my phone screen kept going dark, and when I wanted to check the time I had to unlock my phone first. I use a pretty lengthy combo lock on my phone for no reason... I managed to check the time at 16 minutes remaining, and again at 6 minutes remaining. I was essentially done with the essay at 6 minutes, so I spent the last few minutes doublechecking my grammar.
Also, I made the mistake of neglecting to read the instructions on this prompt. After having written the essay I took a closer look and realized that both this and the previous prompt had instructions which differed from those given for my first essay. Fortunately, I think the distinction was small enough that I might be able to get away with what I wrote, but still it's something I'll do better next time.
Anyway, here it is:
[PROMPT]
Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
[/PROMPT]
[ESSAY]
It's true that scandals tend to capture public attention in a unique and powerful way. When a scandal has come to light, the public latches onto it, and this widespread focus tends to lead to quick resolutions. The people have proven time and time again that when they speak to the government with a unified voice, the government is forced to listen, for what government can exert authority over a people when the people do not recognize its authority?
However, scandals are not only useful as a method to apply pressure towards resolving a problem, they are also useful as a means to distract the population from more pressing issues. Someone famously said, "never let a good scandal go to waste". For example, when the government of the United States took away veterans benefits or social security benefits from its citizens by a lottery, or when the government emptied the bank accounts of a random selection of citizens in order to pay for certain pressing expenses, these events were reported briefly, but then scandal conveniently struck in an area of some less consequential misconduct, having to do with either government or business at the time. These scandals succeeded in turning the attention of the public away from the hurting individuals who lost their fortunes, and away from its own unsure futures. Instead, the public turned its eyes towards problems which ultimately did not affect them directly. The populace at large said, "that will never happen to me", and then turned their eyes towards scapegoats which were more interesting, or more entertaining than the fact that our government has both the capability and the will to sweep our futures out from under our feet.
Furthermore, while the statement seems intended to identify the silver lining surrounding scandals, the scandals themselves must nonetheless be recognized as a symptom of a problem. The scandal only captures the public eye because it points out that there are problems in existence which require public attention. It should rather be the case that neither the originating problem, nor the resultant scandal, ever came into existence. I see no benefit to attempting to cast any positive light on either the scandal or its cause. The statement, then, is akin to saying that prison is a positive thing because it keeps criminals off the street. Naive as the following sentiment may seem, I'm certain that it would be better to have neither criminal nor prison. For this reason, I believe that such a statement in itself is not useful. Rather than lauding the consequences of the crime, let's attempt to improve the society in ways which remove incentive to commit the crime at all.
So, while scandals do indeed serve the purpose of quickly resolving specific issues, they also may serve as a cover for much more serious problems. For this reason, I disagree with what I perceive to be the heart of the statement. Furthermore, I find that the statement itself is not worth making, because there is little use to be found in identifying positive aspects in the consequences of crime; it would be better to direct our energy towards preventing the crime before it becomes a scandal.
[/ESSAY]
I timed myself this time, and I had my phone next to me with the timer. But my phone screen kept going dark, and when I wanted to check the time I had to unlock my phone first. I use a pretty lengthy combo lock on my phone for no reason... I managed to check the time at 16 minutes remaining, and again at 6 minutes remaining. I was essentially done with the essay at 6 minutes, so I spent the last few minutes doublechecking my grammar.
Also, I made the mistake of neglecting to read the instructions on this prompt. After having written the essay I took a closer look and realized that both this and the previous prompt had instructions which differed from those given for my first essay. Fortunately, I think the distinction was small enough that I might be able to get away with what I wrote, but still it's something I'll do better next time.
Anyway, here it is:
[PROMPT]
Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
[/PROMPT]
[ESSAY]
It's true that scandals tend to capture public attention in a unique and powerful way. When a scandal has come to light, the public latches onto it, and this widespread focus tends to lead to quick resolutions. The people have proven time and time again that when they speak to the government with a unified voice, the government is forced to listen, for what government can exert authority over a people when the people do not recognize its authority?
However, scandals are not only useful as a method to apply pressure towards resolving a problem, they are also useful as a means to distract the population from more pressing issues. Someone famously said, "never let a good scandal go to waste". For example, when the government of the United States took away veterans benefits or social security benefits from its citizens by a lottery, or when the government emptied the bank accounts of a random selection of citizens in order to pay for certain pressing expenses, these events were reported briefly, but then scandal conveniently struck in an area of some less consequential misconduct, having to do with either government or business at the time. These scandals succeeded in turning the attention of the public away from the hurting individuals who lost their fortunes, and away from its own unsure futures. Instead, the public turned its eyes towards problems which ultimately did not affect them directly. The populace at large said, "that will never happen to me", and then turned their eyes towards scapegoats which were more interesting, or more entertaining than the fact that our government has both the capability and the will to sweep our futures out from under our feet.
Furthermore, while the statement seems intended to identify the silver lining surrounding scandals, the scandals themselves must nonetheless be recognized as a symptom of a problem. The scandal only captures the public eye because it points out that there are problems in existence which require public attention. It should rather be the case that neither the originating problem, nor the resultant scandal, ever came into existence. I see no benefit to attempting to cast any positive light on either the scandal or its cause. The statement, then, is akin to saying that prison is a positive thing because it keeps criminals off the street. Naive as the following sentiment may seem, I'm certain that it would be better to have neither criminal nor prison. For this reason, I believe that such a statement in itself is not useful. Rather than lauding the consequences of the crime, let's attempt to improve the society in ways which remove incentive to commit the crime at all.
So, while scandals do indeed serve the purpose of quickly resolving specific issues, they also may serve as a cover for much more serious problems. For this reason, I disagree with what I perceive to be the heart of the statement. Furthermore, I find that the statement itself is not worth making, because there is little use to be found in identifying positive aspects in the consequences of crime; it would be better to direct our energy towards preventing the crime before it becomes a scandal.
[/ESSAY]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
