Well folks, I’ve finally got my blog up in a way that I like using the domain name I registered so long ago.
Please, update your bookmarks and visit the blog at www.bounddragon.com. There have been some aesthetic changes that I hope you will like. But the posts will continue to be the same old me…my apologies in advance!
P.S. There will be some new, updated posts coming very shortly!
Jus Dare [to give the law] vs. Jus Discere [to state the law]
Biblically, God is the Law-giver, man simply lives by His Law. The judges of Israel were tasked with stating the law to the people and judging disputes about the Law between people. It is on this government that the American Republic is supposed to be based, yet the American Republic is a Jus Dare government.
However, it should not have been. The Constitution was meant to be the Jus Dicere, statement of God’s Law, and the government should have done nothing more than execute and judge that law.
Here is how colonial lawyer, James Otis, developed the idea when refuting the British Parliament’s rights to unlimited power:
“To say the parliament is absolute and arbitrary, is a contradiction. The parliament cannot make 2 and 2, 5; Omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme power in a state, is jus dicere only — jus dare, strictly speaking, belongs alone to God. Parliaments are in all cases to declare what is for the good of the whole; but it is not the declaration of parliament that makes it so: There must be in every instance, a higher authority, viz. GOD. Should an act of parliament be against any of his natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity and justice, and consequently void.”
In a jus dicere world, the government has not the authority to take our God-given rights from us. It is towards this form of government that we should be striving.
This idea of course comes from the dualistic mindset that heaven is the end goal for Christians. Of course, biblical Christianity teaches that this earth will be renewed and we will live eternally in God’s presence in a pre-fall type creation. And we all know that Adam and Eve ate in their state, so I’m pretty sure we will, too. Not to mention the resurrected Christ eating fish with the apostles and bread with the two men on the road to Emmaus.
From a blog I published at another, more political-based site.
Exodus 22:26-27 If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: 27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
This Biblical passage introduces us to a couple of different concepts regarding lending, specifically one regarding fractional reserve banking. The passage first tells us that the borrower was very poor, he only had his raiment as collateral and thus could only borrow a small amount. He also had to give up his raiment during the day, thereby having to come each night to collect it and return each morning to pledge it.
In regards to fractional reserve banking, we have to draw some conclusions from such a practice. As the lender, I had right to his collateral each and every day of the loan. Why would the borrower have to give up something of such little value? The reason is that if he gave up his collateral to me, the lender, he could not use this collateral with any other lender. Thus, he couldn’t borrow money from me with the raiment as collateral, and from persons B,C,D, and E. If he were able to do so, he could easily run off with the money, leaving lenders A-E to figure out how to split the raiment. He could only borrow what was backed.
In banking, the “crime” of fractional reserve banking is committed. More money is loaned out than what is actually possessed in reserves. In a gold-based society, this happens when more receipts for gold are given out than there is gold in reserves. In a fiat currency-based society, more money is loaned than what there is “cash” on hand.
This is what it looks like. According to the regulations of the Federal Reserve, local banks are required to deposit around 10% (sometimes less) of each deposit at the local bank into the regional Federal Reserve Bank. So if I deposit $100 into my bank, they are required to deposit $10 of that into the regional Fed bank. They can then loan the remaining $90 to the next customer. That customer writes a check for $90 to another, who deposits it into his bank. That bank deposits $9 into their regional Fed bank, and loans out the remaining $81. This continues until the original $100 has been expanded into about $800. Now, what if just a couple of the customers come to withdraw their original deposits, the $100 depositor and the $90 depositor? They are trying to claim $190 of their money where only $100 exists (actually only that which was deposited into the regional Fed bank, maybe the 10% deposits will add up to the original $100 if every borrower deposits the money). They are still $90 short (and this example excludes the possibility of other customers coming to claim their deposits). This action of withdrawing more than what is in reserves is referred to as a bank run. It leads to the collapse of banks (and the eventual need for the Fed or the Government to come along and bail them out).
This process is a form of theft for a couple of reasons. First, it inflates the money supply. In this scenario, there is really only $100 in the money supply, yet it has been inflated to $800 (or more depending upon the reserve requirements) through the practice of fractional reserve banking. Thus, more money is in the market than was originally intended. The market will “feel” this increase of money and its value will subsequently drop. Prices will go up to compensate for the devaluing of the dollar and we will have been robbed of our hard-earned money. Second, it gives people the illusion of money that does not really exist. When they then come to withdraw their money, in the event of a bank run, there will be no money to give them. They honestly and legally deposited money they thought they possessed, and the bank, through legal but criminal actions, no longer has that money to return to them. When they come to claim their raiment, it is no longer available.
This theft is currently legal, and so continues unchecked against us. If a bank issues “counterfeit” money, money it does not have, this is legal. If the government issues “counterfeit” money, money it does not have to issue, this is legal. If a printer prints “counterfeit” money, he goes to jail. It is a double-standard, and one we need to recognize to stop. The Bible prohibits lending what is not there to lend, this is theft in multiple forms.
Liberty exists where we are free in knowing that our money is of value, where there are not secret cabals of government and banking working behind the scenes to increase their own wealth while subsequently destroying ours. This is liberty, and this is what we must demand.
I recently visited a church that holds its services in a local movie theater. When I walked in, I expected the lit up signs above the theater entrances (that normally display the name of the movie being played in that particular theater) to display the name of whatever class/group was being held in there. So, when I approached the first sign and read that within was “New in Town”, I assumed it was a class for new believers or people who had recently moved to town. And, when I saw the next, “He’s Just not that in to You”, I could only assume it was their class on Calvinism.
The Western Church’s teachings’ “result is often a congregation of students who profess perfect doctrine, but demonstrate a type of sin and image management instead of authentic transformation. We know what we should and should not do, we know the kinds of behaviors we must avoid and those we must demonstrate to confirm that we are disciples. However, it is not the fruit of a transformed heart. This type of disciple is more in line with the Pharisees than the disciples of Jesus.”
(Jason Rink, Deeper: A community of passional Jesus followers)
Anglican Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, answers questions about Heaven, Hell, & Resurrection.
I’ve always liked this guy. Met him once at Calvin College in Michigan.
The playlist includes 14 short video clips:
A new study links certain behaviors to a person’s name.
Time magazine has an article about it here, and the original study can be found here.
To some, this may sound ridiculous, coincidental, or crazy, but Biblically this should be agreeable to us.
God is very particular about then names He gives out: Abram, Abraham, Sarah, Israel, etc. Futher, we notice that parents in the Bible are more particular about the names they give their children: Rachel and Leah’s names for their sons. There is even special attention paid to the names given to locations and cities: Bethel, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, etc.
As Christians, we ought to pay much more attention to the names we assign our children. After all, it says something about the authority we have (Adam named Eve and the animals), and has an effect on the type of person the are to become (Abraham, father of a multitude).
This doesn’t mean that we should pay attention to studies like that above. I hardly think naming my child Alec (Defender of the People — which I did name him) is going to turn him into a delinquent (as the study suggests), but rather believe that God will grow him into a defender of the people. We should name our children in faith, not according to crazy studies. But, the names we assign our children are important — Biblically, that much is true.
Romans 13 is that passage of Scripture which is most often used to demand obeisance to the State. This includes the State enlisting pastors to teach this passage on their behalf — just as Hitler did in National Socialist Germany.
There are three major views of Romans 13 that are floating around out there today.
1. In Romans 13, Paul, in light of his knowledge that pagan Rome was a wicked and cruel government that persecuted the Church, still demanded obedience to it.
2. In Romans 13, Paul is referring to the supreme law of the land — which in his day was Rome’s Caesar, but in our day would be the U.S. Constitution.
3. In Romans 13, Paul is referring only to righteous rulers.
This last seems to be the most appealing to Christians who don’t want to have to obey wicked rulers, but seems to fall apart when the historical considerations of View #1 are acknowledged.
Fortunately for us, Pastor Douglas Wilson has recently posted something quite enlightening about the presupposed state of Rome during Paul’s epistle that is usually applied to View #1. His post is partially included here.
Quinquennium Neronis
Topic: Violence and the Trinity
The infamous Nero actually had a good run initially. He took power in 54 A.D. and until 59 (the same year he had his mother killed), Rome enjoyed a mini-golden age, the best since the time of Augustus. That period of time was one remarkable enough to be named the quinquennium Neronis. But between 59 and the year of his death in the late sixties, Nero spun out of control, becoming one of the great megalomanaical pieces of work in history.The reason this is important is because Paul probably wrote Romans in 57 A.D., which means (follow me closely here) that he wrote Romans 13 in 57 A.D. This was right in the middle of that initial period of Nero’s reign when Seneca the philosopher still had his foot on the brake. After Seneca (and another advisor named Burrus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard) were gone, Nero went around the bend completely.
Now the first Roman persecution of the Church began in 64 A.D., when Nero tried to shift blame for the fire of Rome … Continue Reading
Burdens on the state, especially government spending, according to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:
“[F]amily planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
It is statements like this one, combined with exaggerated fears about a population boom, that lead to policies like China’s One Child Policy.
According to Scripture, God created the earth to be filled not emptied:
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
There have been numerous studies that refute the population explosion myth, just as there have been numerous reports refuting the man-made global warming myth. But like these, they are ignored by the media.
One such report proves that the entire world’s population could fit inside the city limits of Jacksonville, FL (just prior to its reaching 6 billion residents), albeit with little room to move. Further, the entire earth’s population could fit inside the area covering Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma with 1,000 square feet per resident. That’s not too bad. And, obviously, in that area, that would be plenty of land left over to grow the food we would need!
No, the population is not exploding to unsustainable levels, and families are not burdensome to society. It is Pelosi and her gang of thieves’ penchant for borrowing and spending that is burdensome to society. Kick the bums out, and elect some law-abiding, Constitutionalists if we want to ease the burden. Forget birth control.
The Bound Dragon | mattb on Private Property in the B… |
 | Nate on Private Property in the B… |
 | Brent on One More Argument for KJV… |
