"I do not agree that secretly flicking a switch once a year constitutes “making your voice heard”. Nor do I think that an annual trip to a voting booth is a criterion for whether one can complain or not. My right to free speech is not contingent upon anyone else, no matter how many of them there are, whether they were elected to some office or however much they stamp their feet."
Matthaíos Bascanni likes this.
Kevin
Craig How
are we going to abolish the State unless we vote for candidates who are committed to
abolishing the State? Assassination? Violent revolution? "Let all things be done
decently and in order." (1 Cor 14:40)
http://KevinCraig.us/revolution.htm
Pablo
Wolfe I
see no reason to believe that tyranncide or proportional self defense (even unto armed
resistance) is of necessity indecent or out of order. Obviously it could be terribly
barbaric, but anywhere near as barbaric as the system it would seek to surmount?
Not likely.
However
I do perceive voting as totally uncivilized behavior.
http://youtu.be/GXm0YHq85Yc?list=FLKgX6PCfg72zTq099HOwQ8g
As
for voting in anarchist politicos, I cannot imagine a more demonstrably failed pursuit.
Voting is absolutely the worst thing an anarchist can do if he actually wants to see the
state wither away by non-violent means. People must simply refuse to go along with the
state in mass. That would be the only effectual means of bloodless liberty. But, even
then, as the state begins to lose it's stranglehold, it will lash out at the non
compliant through violence. Those under attack would certainly be justified in protecting
their families and communities from positive law terrorists.
You
will not be receiving my vote Kevin.
October 16 at 12:34pm · Edited · Like
Kevin
Craig I'm
not getting something. You're OK with assassinating a person created in the Image of God,
but voting is "uncivilized?"
You
say voting for an anarchist who will work to dismantle the State is "demonstrably
failed." When was this demonstration? When has
anyone ever voted for an anarchist? When has an anarchist been elected? When did the
elected anarchist "fail?"
Suppose
the people of North Korea "simply refuse to go along with the State in mass."
Is Kim Jong-un going to pack up and go home? When you say "refuse to go along with
the State," what do you mean? Stand by passively while the state confiscates your
property? That would be bloodless, but not as effective as voting for anarchists. When
you speak of "protecting their families" from the State, do you mean
"locking their doors," or murdering the confiscators? I think your version of
"protecting" means massive bloodshed and loss of life, and that's less moral
than voting for anarchists.
Pablo
Wolfe 1.
Yes, if assassinating that spiritually compromised person made in the image of God will
result in saving the lives of many also created in that image.
2.
Well, for one thing, elections are decided in advance of voting by the plutocrats who
compromise
every component of the electoral process. Also Ron Paul is a defacto anarchist since his
stated intention was reducing the government to a virtual suggestion bureau. He never had
a chance of winning at any time. Finally, even if elected the system will not allow for a
congressman or senator making any lasting, radical changes to the system (again see Ron
Paul), which is precisely how Hamilton and his stooges planned it. The system is set up
to grow government even when a few loose cannon libertarians get elected.
3.
What I mean is that if even 70% of Americans simply stopped playing in to the system, so
far as they could without endangering their family, the system would crumble. The State
is reliant on the direct and passionate participation of a confused mass of tax
cows/slaves. That machine will break down without grease on the wheels.
4.
Your last question is silly. Voting for anarchists in utterly ineffectual and, to be
perfectly blunt, delusional. Killing someone who is sticking a machine gun in your
familes face, willing to gun you down for refusing to be rapined (those who you have
chosen to call "confiscators) is not murder. Plain and simple. Self defense is a
natural right and the exercise thereof can only be considered barbaric by childish
idealists.
October 16 at 12:50pm · Edited · Like
Kevin
Craig Then
Jesus Christ was a "childish idealist."
He
did not kill those who were torturing Him to death.
We
are commanded to follow "in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21-24).
Pablo
Wolfe I
guess you missed that part where Christ said that had that not been His plan and mission
(to die by torture for the propitiation of human sin) that his followers would have
fought to resist His capture. Notice He does not mention this as though his followers
would have been wicked in having resisted.
"My
kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by
the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."
This
obviously implies that were there a just ruler in the world armed defense would have been
justified and seemingly even virtuous.
October 16 at 1:09pm · Edited · Like
Pablo Wolfe Moreover, am I to look at Davids decapitation of Goliath as an act of Barbarism as well?
October 16 at 1:03pm · Edited · Like
Pablo Wolfe Yes, peace is always preferable to war. But again, when the state begins to lose its grip it will not act peaceably. At that point I have every natural right to create a palladium for the innocent. If that consists of unfortunate occasions of violence then so be it. May God have mercy on those who would seek to harm my family and community after I have dispatched them thus.
October 16 at 1:21pm · Edited · Like
Kevin
Craig I
didn't "miss" that part, I just read it differently. Christ's Kingdom does
not (and never will) derive its power and authority from "this world."
That's why His followers don't fight. "Fighting" is the way of "this
world." If there were a "just ruler in
this world," Christ would not have been arrested, and His followers would still
not need to fight. Fighting is never virtuous. The power to overcome the State comes
from the Holy Spirit, who causes statists to become new creatures and repent of
statism. We are passive. God is active. We actively leave vengeance to God (Romans
12). We actively preach the "good news" of global Christian anarchism.
(Galatians 3:8)
http://KevinCraig.us/statism.htm
http://ChristianGlobalism.com
http://VFTonline.org/xmaspiracy/2/2_gospel.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/self-defense.htm
October 16 at 1:34pm · Like · Remove Preview
Pablo Wolfe Sorry Kevin, not gonna vote now or ever again. That ship has sailed, thanks be to God.
Pablo Wolfe And if someone attempts to harm someone I love I will act accordingly (resist in proportion to the assailants escalation).
Kevin
Craig •
I don't know what you mean by "act accordingly." I think Jesus says we are not
to act like the world.
•
I don't know what you mean by "resist."
Matthew
5:39
.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
.
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
•
I don't know what you mean by "in proportion." Sounds like "eye for
eye."
.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye,
.
and a tooth for a tooth:
.
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
http://KevinCraig.us/vengeance.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/self-defense.htm
http://IAmNotAnArchist.us/#No2
http://IAmNotAnArchist.us/audio/02.mp3
October 16 at 4:03pm · Like · Remove Preview
Pablo
Wolfe And
I suppose you believe that Christendom should have allowed the Muslim hordes to run
roughshod over western europe, in which case you would now be under a caliphate and
paying your Jizya. Wait, what am I saying, you would probably be a slave and a Muslim
at the same time.
Christ
also said sell your cloak and buy a sword-was he preparing the apostles for slicing
carrots?. He also attacked the money changers for having trespassed on His private
property (the temple). There is a paradox there, whether you choose to accept it or
not. That means that there is a time for peace and a time for war. I am not going to
lay down in the mud and watch those I love be slaughtered or caged if I am able to
set down trammels. So please, keep on posting more of your blogs if it slakes your
thirst. I am not going to vote for you or any other.
October 16 at 5:34pm · Edited · Like
Kevin
Craig In
addition to saying His disciples should walk naked through the streets of Jerusalem with
swords, Christ also said to poke out your eye. He meant neither literally.
http://VFTonline.org/XianAnarch/pacifism/luke22.htm
http://VFTonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/hyperbole.htm
I
don't know a single real person who believes that when evil occurs, one should "lay
down in the mud and watch." At the very least we should "witness," a word
the KJV uses to translate the Greek word from which we get the English word
"martyr."
http://biblehub.com/greek/3144.htm
Everybody
believes evil should be obstructed. Pacifists will not intentionally kill.
October 17 at 12:22am · Like · Remove Preview
Pablo Wolfe You'd be subject to the draconian, totalitarian caliphate had not Christians taken up the sword (see Martel, Skanderbeg, Tepes, etc, etc). You are saying what you are saying in a world in which the likes of Saldin and mehmed II were halted in advance total dominion over Christian society. The devastating effects of which can only be contemplated. You should be thankful that these intrepid warriors stemmed the tide for the survival of the west.
October 17 at 9:27am · Edited · Like
Pablo
Wolfe "TURN
THE OTHER CHEEK" ALWAYS? It is true that Jesus said to turn the other cheek in
Matthew 5:38-42. However, many scholars do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is
the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe
Jesus was teaching to "turn the other cheek" in virtually all
circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a
member of the Sanhedrin (see John 18:22-23).
The
backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the
face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face.
Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is
that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I
hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back
of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that
expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges
to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek
of your opponent."
The
principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be
that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans
12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question
of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against
a mugger or a rapist.
HE
BIBLICAL CASE FOR SELF-DEFENSE. It is noteworthy that the Bible records many accounts
of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH
Sabaoth ("The LORD of hosts"--Exodus 12:41). God is portrayed as the
omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up
warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim (savior-deliverers). Samson,
Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The
New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith
(Hebrews 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity
to do so, none of the New Testament saints--nor even Jesus--are ever seen informing a
military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke
3:14).
Prior
to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would
face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke
22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan)
is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as
protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates
that Jesus approved of self-defense.
Self-defense
may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself
said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his
friends" (John 15:14). When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is
unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others."
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html
October 17 at 9:10am · Edited · Like
Reb
Rebuttal deleted:
http://KevinCraig.us/rhodes_self-defense.htm
Pablo Wolfe Sorry Craig, but until you respond to my plainly cogent assertion regarding Islam and the fate of the west as we know it you will not be posting anymore blogs or what have you. Not trying to be disputatious, but fair is fair.
Kevin
Craig No,
I can see you're not trying to be "disputatious." You're avoiding
disputation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation
When
one cannot dispute, one censors.
I
did respond. But your "plainly cogent assertion regarding Islam and the fate of
the west as we know it" has brought additional clarity to me, for which I thank
you.
"The
West" as we know it includes the Soviet Union, against whom Muslims have also
fought. "The West" includes China, rapidly "westernizing."
"The West" has intentionally killed nearly half a BILLION human beings in
the last 100 years, and most of those people have been "westerners," not
Muslims (though the West has certainly killed enough Muslims). Which is to say, in
the West's unwillingness to be "pacifist," the West is committing suicide.
"All they that hate Me love death" (Proverbs 8:36).
The
"Military-Industrial Complex" is a trillion-dollar-a-year idol we pray will
save us from dying a pacifist death. We sacrifice our liberty on the altar of
"self-defense." Look at "freedom" in "the West" next
time you board a plane.
"The
West" has apostatized. "The West" is not Christian any more. It is
secular and statist.
We
are commanded to "witness" (Gk: Martureo) to Muslims, not to kill them. God
sends muslims as a judgment against so-called Christians who are unwilling to follow
Christ to the cross (1 Peter 2:21). Name one pagan in the New Testament who was
killed by a Christian witness. Name one Christian witness who refused to be killed by
a pagan.
Witness
to Muslims instead of killing them, and God will convert you and the Muslims to
Christ-followers. "When a man's ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies
to be at peace with him." Proverbs 16:7
October 18 at 11:30am · Like · Remove Preview
Pablo Wolfe You are avoiding. I asked what the world as you know it would be had not Christendom halted the Muslim subjugation of western europe. The fact is, the world as you know it would not exist. You would be under Sharia as we speak. More than likely you would be a muslim (defacto satanist) in the bargain.
Pablo Wolfe Again, I suggest that you thank God every day that he imbued those holy warriors with spine enough to resist those who beheaded, enslaved and raped their way through Byzantium and Spain. Saladin had every intention of wiping out Christianity and was only brought to heel by Christian warriors.
October 18 at 11:42am · Edited · Like
Pablo Wolfe and how does the west include the soviet union? That is/was an eastern country and its faith is/was eastern orthodox.
October 18 at 11:48am · Edited · Like
Pablo
Wolfe disputatious
[
ˌdispyo͝oˈtāSHəs ]
adjective
adjective:
disputatious
fond
of or causing heated arguments:
Kevin
Craig Yes,
the world as we know it would not exist if we followed in Christ's steps (1 Peter 2:21).
You
assume that God cannot change the hearts of Muslims, and that we must kill them. I assume
that if we obey God, He will convert Muslims and we will all live
a decentralized pacifist life: "everyone dwelling securely under his own vine and
fig tree." Micah 4:1-7
http://KevinCraig.us/VFT-7.htm
"Under
sharia law?" Christians did not resort to lethal self-defense against their Roman
persecutors, but we are not under Roman law today. Rome was crushed by the Rock, who
commanded His followers to be pacifists. Muslims will be converted when the West disarms,
beating "swords into plowshares," transforming Marines into missionaries.
Luke
6
27
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28
Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh
away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not
again.
"The
West" took over half of everything you earned to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan to
rubble. The cost: $4-6 TRILLION. Imagine taking just ONE Trillion dollars, and sending a
gospel brochure and a check for $1,000 to every man, woman and child in the Muslim world
-- all one Billion of them. How many might convert? How many would call the U.S.
"The Great Satan" if we gave them a year's wages? But instead of giving, as
Christ commanded, we built bombs. We melted the flesh off their bones with White
Phosphorus.
I
hate the secular, militarized West.
October 18 at 12:36pm · Like · Remove Preview
Kevin Craig The taliban in afghanistan fought the Soviet invasion because the Soviets were part of the atheistic West. The soviets have faith in western socialism, not the faith of Justinian and Theodosius.
Pablo
Wolfe So
basically you are comparing Islamic states to pagan states. Trouble with that is that
Paganism was easily given over to Christianity for a variety of reasons.Contrarily,
observant Islam is adamantine to a degree that makes fascists look ideologically
permeable. The metastasization of muhammadan ways and means is vital to the
personality of islam in every way that it was not in the pagan methodology of
antiquity and the high middle ages.
You
obviously know very little about Russian Orthodoxy and its direct link to Byzantium
if you imagine that it no longer exists, or ceased to exist during the rule of the
bolsheviks.
October 18 at 1:09pm · Edited · Like
Pablo Wolfe In any case, it seems that you're saying that if you see a man running toward a woman with butcher knife shouting "I am going to kill and rape you," that you would remain inert. Well I think that abominable. I appreciate your abhorrence for preemptive warfare and needless intrigues. I cannot agree with you on defending the innocent. If I can prevent a human being savaged I will proceed thus. Nothing you have presented comes even close (given the many hermeneutical paradoxes) to agitating further investigation or reexamination. There is no ingress in Islam for sweeping conversion inside its caliphates. The inability of Christians to attain a lasting palladium or legislative countervail in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc, without being constantly on their guard against immolation, rape and murder provides for this estimation manifestly.
October 18 at 1:18pm · Edited · Like
Kevin
Craig "butcher
knife" -- "remain inert"
You
clearly did not read my rebuttal to Rhodes.
We
have a duty to protect innocent life, but also the life of the attacker.
October 18 at 2:06pm · Edited · Like
Kevin Craig http://www.worldmag.com/.../the_rising_tide_of_muslim...
October 18 at 2:07pm · Like · Remove Preview
Kevin
Craig God
is sovereign, not our militarism and "self-defense."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/.../why-muslims-are...
October 18 at 2:08pm · Like · Remove Preview
Pablo Wolfe I have not denied Gods sovereignty. The implication of your approach to peace is that defending the innocent necessarily by force of arms will not take place and many will endure sexual violation, torture and ghastly sufferings when that could have been prevented, The crusades had great utility in keeping European Christians out of the path of Muslim barbarism and preserving Christianity intact.
October 18 at 2:19pm · Edited · Like
Pablo Wolfe That world article falls well short of disproving my point. which is that a lasting footing for Christians inside of these sharia law countries is impossible due to the nature of Islam as political ideology. In other words, those nations are not going to be swallowed up in the gospel truth. This would be the same situation in western europe had Saladin and Mehmed realized their dream of a known world caliphate, which as you well know, could only have been stymied by force of arms.
Kevin
Craig "preserved
Christianity intact"
You
think the U.S. military-industrial complex -- that has killed, crippled, or made
homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians in my lifetime -- and a
non-superpower level of militarism throughout the rest
of "christendom" ("the West") is "Christianity intact?"
The West has killed an average of 10-20,000 human beings every day for the last 100
years -- because the West denies pacifism and the idea that it's better to be killed
than to kill. That's Christianity? Perhaps Islamic conquest would have prevented the
West from embracing the Sexual Revolution and abortion.
You
DO deny God's sovereignty. You say WE by force of arms must protect Christianity,
even if that means rejecting Christ's example and command. If we reject Christ, what
are we really preserving? Only the secular, sexual, militarized "West." I'm
willing to die for Christ, but never willing to kill for the atheistic
military-industrial complex, sex without marriage, and abortion on demand
http://KevinCraig.us/trust.htm#Un-Wise
October 18 at 3:30pm · Like · Remove Preview
Kevin
Craig Because
the West would rather kill muslims than be killed, Muslims are posting beheadings on
the Internet.
But
the better part of a billion muslims are not killing.
Our
job is to witness to Muslims, even to be martyrs, and let God create Christendom. Our
death is like a plant that spreads seeds all around. The death of one saint spreads
life to thousands.
Faithful
Christians are always a "remnant." The "powers that be" view them
as the Underground. True Christendom is spontaneous, not the result of "central
planning." Armies are centrally planned. Lethal "self-defense" is the
desire to "be as gods."
http://www.garynorth.com/public/7836.cfm
October 18 at 4:07pm · Like · Remove Preview
Pablo Wolfe You seem to labor under the impression that I am in favor of the military industrial complex or Americas senseless perpetual war for perpetual peace method. You also seem to think that I am a fan of our society as it stands. To know me is to know how laughable that is. Just the same, The principles this country was conceived in prior to the Hamiltonian counter revolution are highly commendable in my sight and would certainly not have existed had Christendom not resisted the satanic muslim hordes.
Pablo Wolfe I think we are at an impasse as you have not convinced me even slightly that simply allowing savages to rape, plunder, murder and enslave is Godly. Feel free to get the last word in if you feel it incumbent. I will not vote for you or any other human. Pray for me a sinner.
Pablo Wolfe (no the prayer request is not an admittance of wrong).
Kevin
Craig I've
never said that we should "simply allow" rape and plunder. I've denied it
explicitly twice already. We should do all we can by way of witness and persuasion
and prudence to rebuke evil and prevent it from happening. But "Thou shalt not
kill" must rule
our relations with persecutors, bottom line. We cannot over come violence with
violence.
Before
the Hamiltonian revolution was the Jeffersonian revolution, in which Christians in
the colonies murdered Christians from Britain. Over a tax rate 1/20 our current tax
rate. Better than today, I'll grant, but less Christian than William Penn, and less
Christian than the Anabaptists.
If
you're willing to kill a muslim, in the end you're willing to kill a Christian. You
are your own god. God judges the willingness to kill someone who bears His Image. The
secular "West" is under God's judgment. The Jihadists are His
"sanctified ones." (Isaiah 13:3)
http://95days.blogspot.com/.../thesis-49-state-as...
The
Kingdom of God is bigger than "us" and "them." The way to rid the
world of Islam is by evangelism and faithfulness, not the sword. And I do believe we
can rid the world of Islam. I may have said this earlier, but we spent over a
$Trillion bombing Iraq. Should have just sent them all a check for $1,000 with an
evangelistic tract. Bribery is a better defense than killing.
We
were at an impasse when we started, but I've enjoyed thinking about the issues.
October 19 at 12:58pm · Like · Remove Preview
Pablo Wolfe To think that some will be stopped from rape and murder simply by hearing the gospel is borderline insane. So in the end you are doing exactly as I have described in not taking physical and proportional action against a would be killer or rapist.
October 19 at 1:14pm · Edited · Like
Kevin Craig You're violating the Ninth Commandment by unfairly representing my position. Each time you violate this command you precede it with the word "simply." There are lots of practical things to do to prevent violence besides violate the command "Thou shalt not kill." Read Yoder's book "What Would You Do?" The world is full of examples of murders and rapes that have been prevented by the Word without using the sword. Happens every day.
Pablo Wolfe I am not bearing false witness by accurately describing your position on the matter at hand. By my estimation that is what I have done. Of course their are practical things one can do prior to physical insinuation or altercation when dealing with a person whose free will is answerable to the formal laws of reason and the basic tenets of mercy. But when all those attempts fall short and all forebearence proves ineffectual (see for example the dialogue between Constantine XI and Mehmed II prior to the sacking of Constantinople as just one in a million examples) what then? standing by as innocents are put to the sword or made to relieve the sexual tensions of entire armies? Again (and this will be the last post on this thread) you are advised to thank God every time you lay your head on that pillow at night that there were thousands of Christians willing to die to protect our kindred from being put under muhammadan yoke and made to genuflect in the unholy shadows of a million converted mosques. I will not vote for you and I will intervene when the innocent are set upon by the blood thirsty. Pray for me a sinner.
