The vegan communists are busy working on that technology.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
City vs Homestead
- Thread starter Communication
- Start date
I didn't assert that the admonition came from Scripture, but there are as many assertions that claim to know the source, and doing a Duck Duck Go search just now revealed that the only one in the first page that presents the Ancient Greek "gods help those who help themselves" as the original source. You are in good company, Samuel, thought, as the vaunted Wikipedia is the one that agrees with you!
Red herring territory; no one -- certainly not I -- asserted that anyone should come to the conclusion that s/he should do something all on hir lonesome without working effectively with Him. I'm the last person who would assert that we can do anything without Him!
In a sense, though, this comes down to a semantic argument, because what real difference is there between helping oneself and using the talents provided by Yah to help oneself if one is a believer in Him and His Word (the context within which all these discussions exist on Biblical Families Dot Org)? The point is that the message of trusting in YHWH doesn't translate into an admonition to just sit on one's ass and trust that one can just wait around for Yah to provide. He provides by giving one not only talents but good sense to use logic, ingenuity, planning and compromise to get things done -- not to mention shovels and other implements to accomplish what needs to be effected.
Or do we have to become one of those insufferable people who can't ever even take a compliment because they have to throw their hands into the air and say, "It's not me; it's all God?"
We live on 15 acres 50 miles east of Dallas, Two of my adult children( both former Army) and their families are here on the ranch with us. Giving me comfort that I have them close in the case of SHTF. I drive 65 miles one way to work in Arlington but it is certainly worth the drive to live away from the cities and growing or raising our own food as we move forward. Now we are growing Hemp as a cash crop as we expand our veggie garden and will be adding sheep to our heard of cows. I was given a dream in 2011 that when the hoards are moving down the road looking for targets that Yah will block their sight and they will not even see my drive or house and will pass us by. I believe this is true for the righteous families but I still do have ways to protect my home from what I am able. I cannot fathom living in the city again. I am much closer to Yah here than I was living in the city. Mostly it is because I can slow down and listen for him is the quiet of the country .vs the noise of the city; growing and creating rather than just using and consuming.
I grew up in the country. Spent a decade in the city and hated it. Back in the country and desirous of being even deeper in the woods.
Out in the country, we laugh at city folk. Soft, incapable, know-nothings who think they're on top of the world... there's a reason most cities lean or collapse to the Left. They need handouts and can't take care of themselves... a few watch YouTube self sufficiency videos and think they know something... they might be the most dangerous.
I'll quit before I say what I really think... LOL.
Out in the country, we laugh at city folk. Soft, incapable, know-nothings who think they're on top of the world... there's a reason most cities lean or collapse to the Left. They need handouts and can't take care of themselves... a few watch YouTube self sufficiency videos and think they know something... they might be the most dangerous.
I'll quit before I say what I really think... LOL.
I like the way you think, Steve.
Keep an eye on them. When they make a breakthrough, let us know and we will conduct a raid and steal the technology.
You'll have to remind me when vegan communists ever accomplished anything worth copying . . .
Just for my little clan, while we are distant suburnites now, we are looking for a place in the country all the time.
Food security and control over the quality of food being a big issue as well as personal freedoms, better quality of life...little stuff like that.
Now to find that lady that actually enjoys the idea of being an aspiring country bumpkin as much as I do.
Food security and control over the quality of food being a big issue as well as personal freedoms, better quality of life...little stuff like that.
Now to find that lady that actually enjoys the idea of being an aspiring country bumpkin as much as I do.
Now that is the trick, isn’t it?! Seems like the vast majority of single women can’t see what is coming, and won’t see it until it is too late. Which is really sad considering there are a number of good families here that they could join and by doing so, have a better chance of making it through the hard times ahead and at the same time they could help build a happy family/tribe to be a part of.
I'd rather be around people following the God of the Bible, than anarcho-libertarians. Maybe I misunderstand Agorism.
The two are not mutually exclusive, @Bartato. Libertarianism is the freedom end of conservatism, and there are various extreme alternatives within libertarianism (agorism is one), just as there are within conservatism and liberalism. One thing to keep in mind is that pure anarchism and pure libertarianism are close to the same thing, but these days people tend to conflate anarchism with fascism, because the radical leftists who call themselves anarchists and anti-fascists are, in actually, fascists of the first order; they claim to want a world without rules, but they are and have always been aligned with governmental entities that lean toward or accomplish totalitarianism that enforce very strict personal-behavior guidelines. This is all confused by the fact that the left-dominated media, governments and educational institutions have mass-gaslighted us into believing (a) that fascism is a form of extreme right-wingism (even though it has always historically grown out of left wing movements, (b) that fascists are even more against communism and socialism than they are against democracy (even though the most famous fascist government in recent human history was in Italy during WWII, and they allied with the super-race national socialism of Hitler's Germany -- another example of leftism being hawked as rightism by the left -- and the totalitarianism of Japan's superior-race emperor worship).I'd rather be around people following the God of the Bible, than anarcho-libertarians. Maybe I misunderstand Agorism.
The bottom line, though, is that fascism is an attempt to install an elite that rules with a totalitarian hammer that usually involves some type of racist or supposedly-anti-racist propaganda (two sides of the same coin).
I'm not pointing any fingers here, but it's always a bad idea to get one's definitions for anything from Snopes, Wikipedia, the mainstream media, the Democrat or Republican parties, NPR, the United Nations or Pacifica Radio -- but most of us already knew all that.
The antifa crowd, like many Soros-funded entities, pretends to be anarchists, but they are paid adolescent fascists. Also remember that most people who espouse anarchism also aren't as pure about implementing it in their own lives. Libertarianism itself isn't anything to fear. The vast majority aren't purists but instead temper their libertarianism with other sensibilities. For example, I tend to label myself a pro-life libertarian, because the far extreme of libertarianism would espouse no laws whatsoever. The Libertarian Party (which I'm not a member of) does not espouse such extreme libertarianism.
All of this blathering is to assert that I wouldn't worry about Agorism's anarcho-libertarianism leanings. It's just means that they're in favor of removing the watchful eyes of government from the transactions we make with each other.
Libertarianism fundamentally comes down to the non-aggression axiom - in Ayn Rand's words, "no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.… Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."I'd rather be around people following the God of the Bible, than anarcho-libertarians. Maybe I misunderstand Agorism.
Christianity's ethics fundamentally come down to the golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
These are in practice just different ways of saying essentially the same thing. There is no fundamental conflict between libertarianism and Christianity. Obviously we could spend hours debating the details of specific questions such as abortion - but when you ponder it for long enough you tend to find the conclusions are close to identical if the non-aggression axiom is applied consistently.
I don't know this topic very well at all, but my experience is that while there may be some overlap between the two concepts that get smashed together in "anarcho-libertarian" one concept will basically leave me alone, and the other has a stated view of "no rules" but is really much more aggressively imposing of their ideologyI'd rather be around people following the God of the Bible, than anarcho-libertarians. Maybe I misunderstand Agorism.
From a practical standpoint, I pretty much am a libertarian (though I would preface it by saying Christian libertarian).
Libertarianism and Anarchism (in the libertarian sense) by themselves as a political philosophy divorced from the God of the Bible, really are Godless utopian fantasies that never actually works out in the real world (much like Marxism).
I'd rather just try to follow a Biblical politic which would seem to be God honoring, Christ centered, patriarchal, and to a much lesser extent nationalistic or tribal. ??? Not sure what to think, though I pretty much operate libertarian
As a communist would say: "but it's never been tried properly!"
Something like libertarianism has been tried based on religious moral foundations - the early USA and ancient Israel are examples. While these systems lasted they worked well and were prosperous, but the first was eventually choked out by legalism and tyranny and the second by apostasy and tyranny. This is an endorsement of religious libertarianism.
I can't think of an example of truly secular libertarianism actually being attempted on a large scale. I believe it would only work when there is a religious reason for most individuals to actually choose personally to obey the non-aggression axiom - but I can't think of an actual example where it has been tried and failed to prove this.
Like you said, Marxism has been tried many times and always fails. Secular libertarianism hasn't been tried much. That should tell us something too.As a communist would say: "but it's never been tried properly!"
Something like libertarianism has been tried based on religious moral foundations - the early USA and ancient Israel are examples. While these systems lasted they worked well and were prosperous, but the first was eventually choked out by legalism and tyranny and the second by apostasy and tyranny. This is an endorsement of religious libertarianism.
I can't think of an example of truly secular libertarianism actually being attempted on a large scale. I believe it would only work when there is a religious reason for most individuals to actually choose personally to obey the non-aggression axiom - but I can't think of an actual example where it has been tried and failed to prove this.
Liberty where God is your Ruler actually works. It worked in ancient Israel when they were faithful (some of the time), and it worked in early America, where many people followed God (for the most part).
As a communist would say: "but it's never been tried properly!"
I can't think of an example of truly secular libertarianism actually being attempted on a large scale. I believe it would only work when there is a religious reason for most individuals to actually choose personally to obey the non-aggression axiom - but I can't think of an actual example where it has been tried and failed to prove this.
truly SECULAR libertarianism... only work when there is a RELIGIOUS reason...
made me chuckle. sounds like we both agree that Unless the Lord builds the house...
As a communist would say: "but it's never been tried properly!"
Something like libertarianism has been tried based on religious moral foundations - the early USA and ancient Israel are examples. While these systems lasted they worked well and were prosperous, but the first was eventually choked out by legalism and tyranny and the second by apostasy and tyranny. This is an endorsement of religious libertarianism.
I can't think of an example of truly secular libertarianism actually being attempted on a large scale. I believe it would only work when there is a religious reason for most individuals to actually choose personally to obey the non-aggression axiom - but I can't think of an actual example where it has been tried and failed to prove this.
In some ways, I wonder if both Marxism and Rand style libertarianism are both just Christian heresies. Fallen man wants to benefits of Christ, while rejecting Christ Himself. Christ gives true liberty, and true charity. The philosophy of man doesn't.
"From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs" sounds pretty nice on the surface.
Unless the Lord builds the house
Unless the Lord builds and upholds the nation