• 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.

G-d does not approve of Gloablization: convince me otherwise

It seems that sooner or later globalism requires that all cultures and religions be treated equally.
Right after that Western culture and the Christian religion become suddenly less equal.
And then, lol and behold, they become the problem. Responsible for all of the worlds ills.
 
FollowingHim said:
In a tribal system, people move freely.
Click to expand...

I'll forgive you for not being familiar with the history of the settlement of the North American continent. But in the light of that history your idea couldn't be more absurd.

FollowingHim said:
Historically, there was always free movement of people. Abraham wandered wherever he wanted...People can flow freely in a historical, tribal system....The idea that people will NOT flow freely comes from globalization.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. What has changed isn't free flow vs. controlled flow via borders but rather the type of control on flow that happens. Tribal peoples viciously defended or expanded their territories with great violence. There weren't lines on a map and bureaucratic processes for getting access to territory; but there was control all the same. So too was access to trade routes (land or sea) viscously defended. Now with technology and high order government structures we are able to more thoroughly control people flows; but pre-globalist, pre-nation state wasn't some free for all, travel and live anywhere you wanted paradise.

History is re-pleat with examples of this. Roman-Barbarian interactions. Internal passports in Czarist Russia. European wars. The history of the spice trade. The settlement and wars for the New World. Early US immigration law (which well predates the modern regime of Globalism). And on and on. So too can you see this in the Bible in how the Old law treated Hebrews vs. foreigners, how the sons of Jacob needed permission from Pharaoh to dwell in the land (and then again to leave), the various wars engaged in by the people of Israel in order to get access to Canaan, to dwell there, to maintain their control and residency there. Even Abraham, in order to live at peace in the new land, had to fight wars, sign treaties, and purchase land. His war to free Lot is an interesting example. Freedom was established, not in being able to live here or move there, but in having the might to keep yourself free and prevent enslavement.

This is an idea all the more relevant in nomadic tribal societies; where they do not have fixed domiciles and frequently move. Scale, population and economy prevent strict control over territory. But military might would be used to keep other tribes out of watering areas or fertile pastures and to defend oneself against people raiding for sheep or slaves. In societies like this, claiming that they had free movements because they had no passports and borders on a map is simplistic thinking.
 
I never said it was a paradise. I agree with you that people violently defended their territory. You were free to try and go where you liked - but if the locals didn't like you arriving they might cut off your head. And shrink it or scalp it as a trophy depending on their tribe's particular customs.
Or they might accept you and leave you alone, as happened on many other instances.

I am not familiar with the detail of the settlement of the USA, but well aware of the bloodshed that parts of it involved. New Zealand had similar issues - initial settlement was peaceful, but once Europeans threatened to outnumber the Maori, there was a long period of warfare. In which the Maori were in fact inspired in part by the success of the recent American war of independence and sought to achieve the same for themselves.

When a large number of people tried to move, wars occurred. Nevertheless individual peoples and families could often move peacefully, when they were not numerous enough to threaten the existing inhabitants. Many individual Europeans moved into American Indian tribes, NZ Maori tribes and so forth. Fur traders, whalers, missionaries etc, often welcomed with open arms. Movement was free, when it did not threaten the authority structure.

But when settlers became more numerous, violent attempts to control migration certainly began.

Today the movement of every single individual is controlled. That is unprecedented, at least on this scale.
 
FollowingHim said:
But when settlers became more numerous, violent attempts to control migration certainly began.

Today the movement of every single individual is controlled. That is unprecedented, at least on this scale.
Click to expand...

Individual control in the past was frequently unnecessary because travel was slow and hard and few did it and governments were simpler. Those who did travel were mostly merchants and more often welcomed.

But it is not unprecedented. In the US context, immigration control goes back to the start of the current government. In fact, controls in the past on who could come in under what terms were much more strict than they are today. And the history of controls is very long (Nehemiah 2:7).

In the tribal context, a lot depended on which tribe it was and their policy. Some were welcoming. Others killed you on sight. Well, the men anyway; often the women and children were kept.
 
It's possible to find isolated cases like Nehemiah, but the opposite appears more common. Jonah went to Ninevah, Naomi went to Moab, Ruth went to Israel, many people went back and forth to Egypt at various times, Abraham went all over the place, Elijah walked to Sinai... You have quoted the exception that proves the rule. Yes, dignitaries had paperwork. But most people had none, nevertheless were able to travel.
rockfox said:
Individual control in the past was frequently unnecessary because travel was slow and hard and few did it and governments were simpler. Those who did travel were mostly merchants and more often welcomed.
Click to expand...
I agree there were practical differences to today.

Nevertheless:
On what legal or moral basis does a government derive the authority to restrict the movement of individuals?

I can think of no such law in Torah.
 
Conversely, Torah records YHWH requiring the children of Israel to wipe out everyone living within the borders of the country that He has given them.
 
FollowingHim said:
You have quoted the exception that proves the rule.
Click to expand...

The OT isn't an exhaustive recording of the details of every mentioned event. Just because someone moved somewhere and it doesn't record permission doesn't mean it didn't happen. Furthermore, my point was the age of the event. You argued it was a novelty of modern times. I'm pointing out the practice is very ancient.

FollowingHim said:
On what legal or moral basis does a government derive the authority to restrict the movement of individuals?
Click to expand...

It is a logical extension of the principle of sovereign nations. Even the most primitive, small tribes exercised this right over their territory. If you don't have a right to control who comes in or out of your country you don't have a country. Immigration is just territorial warfare by other means. If enough of a foreign nation enters your borders the land will cease to be yours. This has happened repeatedly throughout history.
 
I feel you are looking at this from the perspective of an American concerned about immigration of terrorists. While I am looking at it from the perspective of a conservative Christian family seeking to flee persecution (for polygamy, homeschooling, or simply Christianity itself). So you instinctively view control as necessary to protect Christians, while I instinctively view such controls as directly endangering Christians.

Both of us are making valid points, but can't see eye to eye as we're wearing different glasses.

The truth will be somewhere in between.
 
FollowingHim said:
It's possible to find isolated cases like Nehemiah, but the opposite appears more common. Jonah went to Ninevah, Naomi went to Moab, Ruth went to Israel, many people went back and forth to Egypt at various times, Abraham went all over the place, Elijah walked to Sinai... You have quoted the exception that proves the rule. Yes, dignitaries had paperwork. But most people had none, nevertheless were able to travel.

I agree there were practical differences to today.

Nevertheless:
On what legal or moral basis does a government derive the authority to restrict the movement of individuals?

I can think of no such law in Torah.
Click to expand...
You're thinking too small. As written Torah would have permitted only descendants of Jacob to own land in Israel. All others were simply visitors.
 
FollowingHim said:
Also, this is a major problem with democracy.

If a king says "you can't build a house without my permission, you can't have a business without a permit, you have to pay 30%+ taxes, you can't grow your own medicines but have to purchase them from overpriced corporates, and I'm going to monitor every single conversation you have and send the police if you sound like you're talking about blowing up something" - the people would rebel long before that ever got that bad. Nobody would let a king have such control over their lives.

But if a democratically elected government says the same thing, people say "it's ok, they mean it for good, and if it gets too bad we can always vote them out...". Except they can't vote them out, because the system is set up on many levels to drive gradually further and further towards greater control. The excuse of "democracy" is a whitewash placed on top of oppression, to get people to accept the oppression and submit to their rulers, while genuinely thinking they are not oppressed.

And therefore democracy facilitates globalization also.
Click to expand...

Democracy creates the illusion that we are not in bondage if we put the chains on ourselves.
 
FollowingHim said:
I feel you are looking at this from the perspective of an American concerned about immigration of terrorists. While I am looking at it from the perspective of a conservative Christian family seeking to flee persecution (for polygamy, homeschooling, or simply Christianity itself). So you instinctively view control as necessary to protect Christians, while I instinctively view such controls as directly endangering Christians.

Both of us are making valid points, but can't see eye to eye as we're wearing different glasses.

The truth will be somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

I come at this from a historic perspective far broader than contemporary concerns about immigration (serious though those be). It sounds like you're approaching this more from what personally benefits/concerns you than history and principle. But you presume a false dichotomy between complete control with no immigration and a free for all. Such controls are necessary if there is to be anywhere for Christians to flee to. If Christians cannot exercise control over their own territories, Muslims will overrun everywhere.

To draw an example from history; it was European efforts to repel the Muslim invasions that allowed Mediterranean Christian scholars a safe place to flee to. And when they came they brought with them scientific and religious texts that historians credit with jump starting the Renaissance and brought to us many ancient accurate texts that led to our modern translations. These same European nations, though they warred with each other over territory, did not turn away their brethren in Christ fleeing the Muslim armies. Remember this was feudal Europe, not exactly the freest place in history.

Globalism is anti-national anti-border controls because it seeks to destroy all distinct peoples and control their lives. The integrity and self determination of any people depends on their ability to protect themselves and the resources they depend on for survival; this necessitates physical control of territory and who/what passes through it.
 
Crazy. Just talking with the ladies this morning about the possibility that there would ever be a shooting war in Texas based on problems coming from Mexico....
 
Somebody/bodies didn’t go to all the work and expense to create this crisis just for giggles.
 
No, they didn't.

@Cap, I'm not as concerned about their making it through. I think Trump and the general attitude of most Texans would make sure that didn't happen. I'm more interested in a global response that would trigger a UN intervention, or something like that, if our border guards and military started shooting 'those poor helpless refugees' (assuming they're all unarmed...). Guess we're about to find out, since apparently Mexico can't stop them either. The Rio Grande will help, but it's still likely to get messy. At least.
 
andrew said:
No, they didn't.

@Cap, I'm not as concerned about their making it through. I think Trump and the general attitude of most Texans would make sure that didn't happen. I'm more interested in a global response that would trigger a UN intervention, or something like that, if our border guards and military started shooting 'those poor helpless refugees' (assuming they're all unarmed...). Guess we're about to find out, since apparently Mexico can't stop them either. The Rio Grande will help, but it's still likely to get messy. At least.
Click to expand...

I understand, and by the way, if Texas ever decided to secede from the union I would seriously consider moving back to my birth state.

Also, besides the Rio grande, looks like there may be a major hurricane being thrown in the mix. But you are right the world implications are huge in this.
 
Cap said:
I understand, and by the way, if Texas ever decided to secede from the union I would seriously consider moving back to my birth state.
Click to expand...
If I weren't pretty focused on marriage freedom and were looking for an issue to get behind, secession would make the short list. Sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top