Confused About Brexit? All You Need to Know About It In Less Than Two Minutes

If God Says Civil Government is Oppressive, Haughty, and Abusive, Why Do Religious Institutions Promote It Anyway?

---- 

How many of us have heard those in the mainstream religious community, examining the purpose of government, say, “Government was divinely ordained or instituted by God for the purpose of punishing evildoers?” The obvious derivative to this mainstream conclusion is that we should obey, honor, and give reverence to ‘the powers that be’ because they are God’s ministers or servants doing the work of God. Those making this proclamation rely heavily on Romans 13:1-7 in arriving at what we believe to be an erroneous conclusion. 

It is a great disservice to the reader to discuss the purpose of government, from a biblical standpoint, without first examining the nature of government, from a biblical standpoint. We also believe there to be no greater commentary on the bible than the bible itself and after examining the nature of government, from a biblical standpoint, the reader may want to revisit Romans 13 and determine if commonly held premises about the purpose of government still hold water. We contend that the mainstream religious institution’s bucket has a pretty large hole in it juxtaposed to what God says about the nature of government.

The most compelling biblical portrayal of the nature of civil government is found in 1st Samuel 8. God explains to Samuel what he is to tell the people who are begging for a king to rule over them. God’s description of civil government is not a flattering one nor does it portray civil government as being worthy of our honor, respect, or fidelity. The desire for civil government is described in simple terms as being rebellion towards God. 

The account in 1st Samuel 8 contradicts the notion that government was ordained by God, at least in the classical sense the words ‘ordained’ and ‘government’ are commonly used and referenced today. There is certainly nothing divine about human government even though religious authoritarians would have you believe otherwise. And, even though we, as Americans, don’t live under a monarchy, God’s description of the nature of this form of government certainly seems to rhyme with much of what we’ve seen in world history and our own country’s history pertaining to the ongoing tyranny of civil or human government. 

What miraculous transformation occurred in the nature of man, or the nature of government, between the old and new testaments that would justify the common rendering religious authoritarians have extrapolated from Romans 13:1-7? Did not God unequivocally state, in 1st Samuel 8, that a desire to be ruled by man is an outright rejection of Him? Would God institute or ordain something He disparaged in such a way, as depicted in 1st Samuel 8? We don’t think so. Neither do we accept the statist spin many religious institutions place on Romans 13:1-7. The mainstream religious institution’s rendering of Romans 13:1-7 would, by necessary inference, imply either that God lied to Samuel or that the Apostle Paul lied in his letter to the Romans. Even worse, is when their extrapolations make it appear that the Apostle Paul contradicted himself in Ephesians 6:11-12. Why would it be necessary to put on the whole armor of God to protect us from evil world rulers if they were ordained by God to be nicey-nicey? Does God ordain evil? If we were placed in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between the veracity of the Apostle Paul’s translated and seemingly contradictory words as opposed to the veracity and logic of God’s translated words, we would naturally be inclined to choose the latter over the former. God characterizes civil government, in 1st Samuel 8, as being evil and characterizes those seeking to be ruled by it as rebellious. We wholeheartedly agree.

Why are religious institutions promoting the fallacy that civil government is wonderful and good, in the shadow of God’s declaration to the contrary, and in spite of the civil government tyranny readily apparent to anyone willing to look out the window and observe what is going on in the world, at the moment, and what has transpired throughout history? Why do religious institutions continue to promote rebellion against God? We think we’ve found the answer to this most troubling question. If you’ve struggled with the meaning of Romans 13:1-7 and are a bit skeptical and weary of mainstream religious institutions who dutifully and exuberantly pull out their pom-poms and take you through the statist cheer every time this passage is discussed, you may be interested in reading our recently released book The END TIMES Hoax and the Hijacking of Our Liberty. 

----

Secession: A Fundamental Principle of Liberty

---- 

The right to secede or withdraw our consent is a basic human right we’ve all exercised from time to time and to one degree or another. We, on occasion, withdraw from relationships, whether personal or professional, no longer serving our needs or values. Additionally, we often withdraw our support or loyalty to products or services no longer serving our needs or our values. Why would the state secessionist movement be relegated to a different set of rules or rights by our federal government? 

Is the right to secede conditional upon someone or some entity granting us permission to do so? If freedom is something granted (an assumption), how can we ever hope to be truly free? We either believe that we as individuals choose to be free or we believe others grant us our freedom(s). If we believe others bestow our freedoms on us, how do we reconcile the issue of the equality of mankind? If, as many proclaim, we are all equal, who would be so arrogant to assume they are in a position to grant or bestow freedom upon their equals? And, if the arrogant assume they are in a position to grant or bestow freedom upon their equals, what assurance do we have that they will be any less arrogant in the reversal of such bestowment? 

Can one imagine the public outcry if corporations successfully lobbied for bills making it illegal for employees to terminate their employment? Can one imagine the public outcry if landlords successfully lobbied for bills making it illegal for rent paying tenants to terminate their lease agreements? Can one imagine the public outcry if automobile manufacturers successfully lobbied for bills making it illegal to terminate ownership and use of their particular brand of automobile? Can one imagine the public outcry if cities, municipalities, or states forbade residents to leave their territorial boundaries?

The early American colonists came together in a voluntary union and made a decision to secede from British rule. Voluntary union and secession was the basis upon which this nation was founded. If voluntary union and secession was the basis upon which this nation was founded, why wouldn’t it also be the basis of its continuance? 

What Abraham Lincoln did, in coercively suppressing the secessionist movement of the South, was treasonous and un-American and this act of coercive suppression represented a reversal of something considered very fundamental and unique to the forming of our nation. No longer, after Lincoln’s tyranny, would the federal government be truly answerable to the people. No longer would the federal government seek to create an environment of mutual consent and voluntary association. Lincoln brought us the beginnings of a haughty and abusive form of government that continues, to this very day, to flaunt its power intrusively and obnoxiously. We’ve evolved into a nation of serfs no better off than the colonists, under oppressive British rule, and in many instances the tyranny we experience today is worse than the tyranny experienced under British rule. The primary difference being that today the tyranny is much more creatively disguised through the management of perceptions by mainstream media.

Why was secession from British rule applauded as being something akin to the Divine while the Southern States secession from the Union was, under Lincoln, characterized as being heretical or treasonous? Why did the United States government applaud the state secessionist movement in the U.S.S.R. and elsewhere while continuing to pooh-pooh the same liberty for their own individual states? Is there a double standard for freedom?

Is not voting with our feet and our money true democracy practiced in its most pure form? Can we imagine the degradation of products and services consumers would experience if a law was passed prohibiting shoppers from discontinuing the use of a product or service? Can we imagine the abusive and haughty behavior that could be found in marital relationships if laws were created to prohibit withdrawal from those relationships? Can we imagine the abusive and haughty nature of a government run amok, as witnessed on an almost daily basis, not having some connection to Lincoln’s treasonous act against the South? How many past civilizations embracing coercion, as the patriotic glue uniting their societies together, did not witness this coercion morphing into more oppressive forms and serving as the catalyst for the next revolution?

When sellers of products and services are required to compete for our loyalty, doesn’t that make for more choices and better service in the marketplace? When a spouse understands their partner is not shackled to the marital relationship, in a coercive fashion, doesn’t that garner more mutual respect or respectful behavior towards one another? Why wouldn’t a similar voluntary and competitive structure, in government, provide equally more choices, freedom and better customer service? 

If we can understand the benefits of secession from the British Crown, can we not understand the potential benefits of secession from the Union? When we succumb to the false ideas of - my country, right or wrong; my church, right or wrong; and my family, right or wrong; how do we avoid resigning ourselves to the inevitable negative consequences (tyranny) arising from such self-destructive paradigms? Unconditional loyalty to one’s country, one’s church, and to one’s family soon becomes the breeding ground for the selfish and arrogant. 

If the secessionist movement isn’t successful on the state level, it can certainly be successful on the individual level. If the United States government appears to have great difficulty in keeping illegal immigrants out of our country, how can it be expected the United States government will be any more successful in keeping those desiring to leave (secede) from doing so? The best and brightest liberty minded people will leave for more hospitable shores and many are doing so right now. Those who understand what liberty is will certainly find it. 

In the final analysis, there will be only two impediments to the masses desiring to secede from the Union in whatever fashion deemed appropriate to the circumstances. Those impediments are personal debt and dependency upon the Nanny State. Debt and Nanny State dependency keep us in perpetual slavery and we do it to ourselves by our choices. The famous Pogo cartoon quotation summed it up best when lamenting, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

The most prosperous nation states of the future will be the ones who compete with each other in providing an environment of low taxes, privacy, and the elimination of onerous regulations and frivolous lawsuits. The personally responsible and solvent will be attracted to their shores.

The impoverished third world nation state wastelands of the future will be the ones who incentivize personal irresponsibility, personal debt, and dependency upon the Nanny State.

We have a choice to be loyal to the principles of freedom and our core values or the choice to be loyal to the brand and the expectations of others. Freedom is a choice! 

----

Some Say, “God is in Control”: We Ask, “In Control of What?"

----

Is God really in control, or is this just another mindless cliché that serves as a tool of obfuscation to those disinclined to accept personal responsibility for what happens to them or to those disinclined to look a little deeper into what they see going on in the world around them?

How many of us look around at the calamities going on in the world such as the BP Deepwater Horizon oil gushing crisis, the banking collapse, the “forever wars” in the Mideast, the implosion of residential real estate, the exportation of our manufacturing sector, the escalating unemployment rate, the rioting and bloodshed in Greece, the Columbine styled school shootings, the bombing of the Murrah building, the collapse of the Twin Towers, or the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, and sometimes feel compelled to label or categorize these events as being or representing something outside of our own control and miraculously separated from the choices we individually make whether we are talking about where we choose to live, our choice of employment, our recreational pursuits, our personal associations, our political worship, or how we choose to invest our money? It is much easier, when faced with such seemingly unexplainable events and calamities, at least by mainstream media’s standards, to place them all in the “too hard to do bin” by making the rather weak and unconvincing proclamation that, “God is in control,” thereby automatically dismissing out-of-hand any personal responsibility for the outcomes we may encounter along this journey we call life. 

In making the statement, “God is in control,” does it not appear to be an effort on the part of some to simply avoid thinking about cause and effect or the associated implications (consequences) of their beliefs, decisions and actions? If we can quickly shift personal responsibility onto something outside ourselves, doesn’t it tend to make for more happy thoughts? When someone is attempting to mindlessly shift their personal responsibility onto God’s shoulders, with such a reckless cliché as, “God is in control,” the automatic response bursting forth from our lips is, “In control of what?” What is God in control of? Do we, or do we not, have freewill, or are we all just hapless victims of a cruel joke played upon us by our Creator? Are we really just robots or automatons? Does holding on to the “God is in control” paradigm encourage us to be more responsible for our personal behavior, or less responsible? Does the holding on to the “God is in control” paradigm encourage us to be better stewards of our natural resources, or less so? Does the holding on to the “God is in control” paradigm encourage us to be more loving of our neighbors, here and abroad, or less loving? 

Ironically, many Christians who proclaim that, “God is in control,” when faced with overwhelming calamity that they are not willing to accept responsibility for, are the same ones who cheer on or actively participate in the annihilation of brown skinned babies, of Muslim parents, because they think God may have fallen asleep at the switch and that he may need a little nudge. They may verbalize or intellectualize that “God is in control,” but their contradictory actions, even if it’s just a warmongering wink and a nod, from the safety of their pews, bespeak something else entirely. Their contradictory actions imply a degree of impatient benevolence towards a God who apparently does not know what is going on in the world and who needs their help to bring on Armageddon to the Axis of Evil (anyone not bowing to their whims, desires, and expectations). This contradictory push-pull is much like an adult rendition of the childhood straw squeezing game where giggling little girls pinch the straw and verbally speculate, “He loves me, he loves me not,” being replaced, in the adult Christian version by, “God is in control, God is asleep.” So, which is it? Is God in control or is he asleep? God can’t be both, can he? 

Do we really want to sit back and entrust others to play squeeze the straw and discover the answer to that question for us, or do we want to more broadly explore our own questions and answers that don’t serve to limit the outcome to such narrow and equally disturbing possibilities? Neither of the two possibilities, above, seem very complimentary to a loving God who made each of us in his own image to autonomously rule over the animal kingdom, plant kingdom, and our own families, does it? Is it possible we sometimes attempt to mold and shape God to our own skewed images? 

The two conflicting and contradictory paradigms, “God is in control” and “God is asleep,” often held by Christians simultaneously can only be embraced, in such fashion, by those who’ve awkwardly and vainly attempted to compartmentalize and segregate their spiritual lives from their secular lives. They represent a sort of Jekyll and Hyde dual personality struggling to achieve congruity between their incompatible religious and secular belief systems. In their minds, killing little brown babies is justified because God must be asleep at the switch in allowing Muslims to exist and pursue their dreams of autonomy and that Armageddon must happen within their lifetimes because the Bible says so. Never mind the fact that their Bible is the same Bible their parents, grandparents and great grandparents read and that Armageddon didn’t materialize within their lifetimes. They, without the least bit of shame, postulate that maybe if they kill even more brown skinned babies that maybe they can prove to a loving, kind, and compassionate God that they are actually worthy of the rapture for which they are desperately longing.

Is there possibly a third paradigm we need to explore that makes much more sense than the contradictory and opposing “God is in control” and “God is asleep” paradigms many so-called Christians equally and contradictorily embrace? What would that third paradigm be?

A third paradigm that makes much more sense to us is the one that says, “I choose to conduct myself as if I'm responsible for everything I do and everything that happens to me…period.” Although we recognize that God instituted the natural laws designed to keep our Universe from spinning out of control, we also recognize that within this framework of natural law that we, as human beings, are blessed with the freewill to design our own destinies. The more closely our life design parallels the natural order of things, the more peace, joy, love and happiness we experience. When our lives continually bump up against the sharp edges of natural law, the more pain we experience. When we seek and embrace natural law and make it our ally rather than discovering it haphazardly, we show gratitude and allegiance to our Creator and experience more peace, joy, love, happiness and abundance. When we embrace man’s law, on the other hand, we experience all manner of mischief, calamity, inequality, scarcity, hate, strife and discord. 

We, as human beings, are not victims of anything other than our own choices…good, bad, or ugly and we cannot realistically separate the consequences of life from our own beliefs, decisions and actions. 

We can already hear a few readers mumbling, “Yeah, but what about…babies born with physical and mental challenges? What beliefs, decisions and actions are they responsible for making that brought them these challenges?” These are the ‘lifeboat cases’ that are invariably raised by those disinclined to accept personal responsibility for their beliefs, decisions and actions. They’re hoping to philosophically piggyback or hitch a ride off the infirm. Ironically, how many instances have we witnessed autistic children becoming virtuosos in some field of endeavor? Or, what about those who’ve overcome severe physical disabilities and achieved personal fame in the sports world? Yes, it would appear that some may have been dealt a bad hand, at the inception of life, but what is our excuse and who are we to judge their challenges as being disabilities? Who are we to judge their purpose in life as being subpar to our own? Who are we to judge and place limits on their capacity for achievement?

Those inclined to put on their victim faces and philosophically hitch a ride off the infirm will be shamed to tears after viewing the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MslbhDZoniY&feature=player_embedded

----