0 votes

Anarchy lesson from the Bible

I just received this forwarded email. I liked it. I haven't checked the sources cause my Windows box is a virus magnet.


Genesis 47:13-27

I would love to give the Pastor of this predominantly black church in Virginia a hug and a high five. This guy is obviously a leader and not one of the sheep. Perhaps we should each decide who our real leader is…………. It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years.
Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.
Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us?
Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray... So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt , and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.
So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey -
to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through
the end of that year..
But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except
their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slaverto him, in return for grain. What can we learn from this, brothers
and sisters? That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes.
But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt , in the land of Goshen .. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions! But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.

What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves,"You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"?

Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.

Bow with me in prayer, if you will.

Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone.We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters.

Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.

In God We Trust...
You may consider sharing this with others.

If you don't agree ... just delete.

Have a nice day.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Bible defenately supports the Anarchist position

The moment God instituted government in Gen 9, He described it as force. He also limited it to a force of justice for the destruction of person hood.
When He instituted the government of the Jews, It was for retribution. He never instituted a any punishment for failure to observe religious institutions or ceremonies. The the law was based on Justice, a justice that was to be carried out on a local level by peers.
In the NT Romans 13 tells us government is FORCE.
For the Bible believing Christin it is tough to argue for big government. It is like arguing for divorce or abortion. You have God's standard (anarchy) verse mans standard (Babylon or NWO).
What is interesting is the hypocritical appropriations of OT promises. To often Christian claim 2 Chronicles 14:7 which states "if my people who are called by name will humble themselves and begin to pray.... I will heal their land". Often in the same breath they will argue for stronger national defense, when the same God told the same people not to multiply horses and chariots.
Reading Revelations offers insight on who the Harlot is. The OT reference of Harlotry where constantly Jewish. The term was used when the Jews rejected Gods standard for some hybrid world system

The conspiracy loons spend to much time attacking the Bible, when more often then not the Bible is their best friend. God created man in his image, and therefore respects individual choice. He respects choice and personal responsibility more than any man can and should be championed as the model of choice..

AMC, I must have missed....

...God instituting a government in Genesis 9 and "describing it as force".

Could you please provide a verse where you think his happened?

Now, as to your second claim, I think there is an easy contradiction for that. You wrote:

"He never instituted a any punishment for failure to observe religious institutions or ceremonies."

This is the first contradiction I found, and I didn't look any further. (Emphasis added):

Exodus 12:15 `Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, THAT PERSON SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM ISRAEL.

You raise a good point here:

What is interesting is the hypocritical appropriations of OT promises. To often Christian claim 2 Chronicles 14:7 which states "if my people who are called by name will humble themselves and begin to pray.... I will heal their land". Often in the same breath they will argue for stronger national defense, when the same God told the same people not to multiply horses and chariots.

One of the nearly ubiquitous failures in the Christian world is that they fail to sort through the Bible and come up with some rule as to what is supposed to apply to them now and what is not. With the passage you cite, they would have to pretend that by extension, this promise made to the Israelites many centuries before Jesus would also apply to them today. Of course, they do NOT take into account that the "their land" which was promised to be healed was a reference to Israel, and not to any other nation---even the good ol' US of A.

So yes, this is clearly a misappropriation, as are a great number of the promises that Christians "claim" today.

As to the greater issue of what, exactly, God was condemning in "the harlot", my hunch at my current point in study is that the "harlotry" is misattributed to Israel, when in actuality, it all began with Satan. In your view, it was a question of anarchy vs. "some hybrid world system". But in my view, it was a question of who was the "ruler of the world".

Was it God, or was it Satan? In three places we see Jesus clearly referring to Satan as "the ruler of this world". (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Further, we see much language throughout concerning "powers", "principalities", "rulers of this dark age", etc. And while some of these passages may be ambiguous as to the nature of these powers, certain other passages make it abundantly clear that they are NOT referring to humans. For example:

Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

And in the climax of the Revelation, we see that Satan was to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. (Revelation 20:10)

Thus was the overall drama of the Bible opened with Satan's intervention in Genesis 3 and closed with his destruction in Revelation 20. In short, my study so far leads me to believe that the "Babylon" being destroyed was Satan's empire, which had long been based in Sumer/Babylon, and not the literal state or Babylon nor the unfaithful state of Israel.

If God were generally anti-government, we must admit that there would have been a great number of opportunities for him to have said so explicitly in the span between the writing of Genesis and the Revelation. I simply do not think that the Bible narrative is about the political life of the world. Rather, it seems to be about who should rightly be honored as the creator/owner of it.

I understand that a lot of what I am saying is open to interpretation, yet this is a well-considered position that has come from a thorough study of these very questions. If anybody's investigative/interpretive kung fu is stronger than mine, I'd be happy to see it.

Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution

Excellent reply

Gen 9 is the first instruction to man regarding the actions of another man. He who takes a life must pay with his life. If an animal takes a life that life must be taken.
Until that point the taking of a life was not allowed. Thus the institution of law and force. Government like Divorce was something not intended, it was instituted because of evil of man. Later on in Gen we see the fruit of government in the building of the tower of Babel.

As far exodus 12 is concerned. In context it is talking about passover celebration. The only people celebrating it would be Israelites. If you are a RP supporter you vote for him, if you do not vote for him you are cut off. That pronouncement is really a description of something that already happened.
Tithing is something that was commanded but no penalty was ever described. Religion and worship was not to be compulsorily.

On Satan we agree. Satan came in and caused doubt in Gods love and therefor Gods law. The harlotry occurs when the one who was with God commits harlotry with Satan or his/ the world system.
The picture in Gen 3 is one of Satan coming manipulating choice. Jesus came to restore choice. God is not so much anti government as He is against the manipulation of free will.
Big Government by its very essence is the destruction and manipulation of choice

Oh, wait, AMC...

I forgot to thank you for pointing out the part about there being no punishment for failure to pay tithes under the Law of Moses. I had never heard that before, and my initial view of it was skeptical, but in a brief search, I could find no evidence of any punishment having been set forth for that.

I did find where it was condemned ("cursed", actually) in Malachi 3:8-10, but in no place did I find any sort of punishment that was to be inflicted by the community (such as stoning or ostracizing) for that offense.

If anybody sees that I have missed something, I sure would appreciate a reference.


Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution

AMC, I hope you won't be offended if....

...I examine your points closely.

Gen 9 is the first instruction to man regarding the actions of another man. He who takes a life must pay with his life.

Interestingly, though, no details are given in this text as to what instructions God may have given regarding this. Was there to be a trial? Could anybody exact such punishment? Obviously, we are not being told the entire story in this particular narrative, for it raises many questions that it does not answer.

Until that point the taking of a life was not allowed.

You may be right, but I don't think we have enough evidence to know that for sure. Yes, there is a stark contrast between Genesis 9:5-6 and 4:14-15, where we see Cain being sent off to wander and even protected by a decree from God after having murdered his brother. But it appears from the accounts of Genesis 6 and 7 (as well as from other relevant texts, such as 1 Enoch) that there was a good deal of killing going on at the time of the flood. In no document have I read that any prohibition against killing in self defense or capital punishment was ever in force at any time. If you know of such a passage, please tell me where to find it.

Thus the institution of law and force. Government like Divorce was something not intended, it was instituted because of evil of man.

Law had already existed, as well as force. We see it in Genesis 3:3 with the command not to eat of the tree. And we see the "force" in the expulsion from the Garden (3:23). To be fair to your point, this enforcement was executed by God, and not by man. But let me remind you that we have NO information about what all God might have instructed Adam and Eve with regard to parenting, to society, to marriage, etc. We have only the briefest of highlights.

Therefore, I think it's an irresponsible stretch to say one way or another that we are being shown the formation of "government" in these texts. In fact, our anarchist friends here might perceive in these same texts a "natural law" and the justification of vengeance, rather than a "government", as you see it. There is simply too little information here from which to know for sure.

Government like Divorce was something not intended, it was instituted because of evil of man.

If this is true, ...that is, if God 1) instituted government, and 2) did it because man was evil,

Then why wasn't government instituted in Genesis 4 after the death of Abel? And if we opine that things just weren't bad enough to justify government until AFTER the flood, how do we account for the undeniable fact that there was more evil in play on the day before the flood than on the day they got off the ark?

Again, I just don't see enough information here for these kinds of conclusions.

Later on in Gen we see the fruit of government in the building of the tower of Babel.

Yes, we see this about Nimrod:

Genesis 10:8. Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a *****mighty one**** on the earth. 9. He was a ****mighty**** hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod the *****mighty**** hunter before the Lord.'' 10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

We have this "mighty one" who must also have been a king since he had a "kingdom". You argue that such "government" was "instituted" in Genesis 9, and we have an earlier instance of "mighty ones" here in Genesis 6:

Genesis 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the ****mighty men**** who were of old, men of renown.

The term for "mighty one" (Of Nimrod in 10:8) is the same term for "mighty men" in 6:4. It is GIBBOWR (Hebrew), and you'll find a treatment of it here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Stro...

And this brings us to the question: If Nimrod was a GIBBOWR and a king, then were the people described in 6:4 as GIBBOWRs kings as well?

Yet in both cases, we find it awkward to believe that God had "instituted" such. Indeed, if "government" is inherently evil, then why would God have instituted it? And if, as you argue, government (albeit it evil) was simply necessary because of man's evil---AND if God himself instituted it, then why didn't he do so before Cain's murder? Or immediately afterward?

So again, I think it's shaky ground to read too much into these texts.

The harlotry occurs when the one who was with God commits harlotry with Satan or his/ the world system.

I'm with you right up to the "/". The devil (pun neither intended nor rejected) is in the details of what you mean by "world system". You seem to be generally pointed at saying that "government = evil", but you also seem to be suggestion that God himself implemented government on the earth. So when you refer to Satan's "world system", you seem actually to be referring to governments that you would say elsewhere were instituted by none other than God himself.

When I see Israel being condemned for "playing the harlot", I see it not being on account of the body politic, but of the worship of (and sacrifice to) foreign "gods" and/or "demons":

Exodus 34:15 "lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they *****play the harlot with their gods***** and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice,

Exodus 34:16 "and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters *****play the harlot with their gods***** and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.

Leviticus 17:7 "They shall no more ****offer their sacrifices to demons****, after whom they have ****played the harlot.**** This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.'' '

And so on...

So I think you have failed to identify "the world system". You continued:

The picture in Gen 3 is one of Satan coming manipulating choice.

I don't see that at all. In fact, I see quite the contrary. Satan came to OFFER a choice. (And I make no argument about government from this; I simply want to correct your misconception about what happened in Genesis 3.) Before Satan's appearance, God had presented one choice to Adam and Eve:

Genesis 2: 16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17. "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.''

This is just ONE choice. But then enters Satan and says:

Genesis 3:4. And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5. "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.''

Eve, now having two choices in mind, chooses poorly. That's when things go bad.

You continued:

Jesus came to restore choice.

No, actually Jesus came to remove the second (and illegitimate choice). Consider these passages, which are all relevant to this point in one way or another:

Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Acts 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Clearly, the days of Satan's alternative to God being tolerated were over, and "all men everywhere" were expected to shun Satan and turn to God.

God is not so much anti government as He is against the manipulation of free will.

Again, if God instituted government, as you seem to have suggested earlier, then how could he be at all opposed to it? (And again, I'm not making any statement here about government, one way or the other, but am simply taking issue with your reasoning.)

And as to free will being manipulated didn't that start in Genesis 3? Yet you have not said that the Serpent's presence there constituted a "government", have you? Indeed, evil behavior on the part of humsns is ubiquitous---government or not. So I find this attempt to tie "government" and "evil" together to be dubious.

Big Government by its very essence is the destruction and manipulation of choice

How did we suddenly leap, in this conversation about "government" to a summation about "Big Government"? That simply does not follow.

Secondly, as to "choice" how can choice suffer both "destruction" and "manipulation" at the same time? Your meaning here is unclear.

I think your case lacks support from the passages you put forward to support it. I find very little in the Bible that could be construed as a discourse on government. Sure, one may find principles here and there. But many of your assertions here are far over-reaching, and they just don't hold up well under scrutiny.

If small government is a good idea, why can't it be sold on its own merits, without having to fabricate a dubious biblical case for it? Is this not a "manipulation of free choice"---suggesting to Christians that they should want small government because God wants it?

The only body politic that God ever ordained was the nation of Israel (not the current one, but the one that he utterly destroyed in 70 AD and never reconstituted). So if we're going to claim that God favors some certain type of government, wouldn't we have to go get ourselves a temple and some priests to replicate what we read about? And no one (I hope) is suggesting that.

I just think it's a weak case all around, AMC.


Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution


You have to tell me how to make quotes if I have to respond to all that.
I gave a half mess answer due to lack of time. I can and will develop the ideas more fully. It has to do with covenants, dispensations and God changing His dealings with man to further reveal himself.
God did not institute government after Cain because this was something new, a new start fro man kind.
Adam, Eve, and their decedents rejected the rule of God and thus where destroyed.Now it is mans turn to hold man and beast accountable.

A few tips.

if you want to quote something and have it indented like a "tabbed" paragraph, so it's easy to spot as a quote, you just copy (or type) the section you want and put it in its own line in the box where you're writing your post. Like what follows:

The text I want.

Then if you want to make it really clear that you are indeed quoting something, put quotation marks around it like this:

"The text I want."

Then you can indent it by writing in your own html code. This one's tricky to tell you how because if I type it into this post, it will not show in the finished product, but instead, will do what it's supposed to do.

The code you type is the word "blockquote" (without the quotation marks.)

So you would do it like this:

blockquote "The text I want." /blockquote

(Be sure to include that slash mark on the last one. This turns off the indention so the rest of your post doesn't turn out indented.)

Now here's where the magic happens. If you do it as I just did, you will see what you just saw---that is, the words "blockquote" appear on the screen.

But if you take both instances and put them inside these symbols, it will work: < > So the word "blockquote" goes inside those symbols (with no spaces or quotation marks) at the beginning of your indention, and then you put "/blockquote" (including the slash, but with no quotations or spaces) inside the <> marks at the end of the indention.

And when you do that, you get this:

"The text I want."

Remember, the first code has no / and the second one MUST have the /.

The same process is used to do other things. You just replace the "blockquote" part with other codes, such as "b" for boldface or "i" for italics.

And always click the "Preview Comment" button first before you submit a post, because you're going to type the html wrong sometimes---especially leaving out the closing slash marks.

It's a pain to go through all this, but it sure does make a post a LOT easier to read.

    Oh, if you look just below the text box where you write your posts, you'll see some HTML codes to jog your memory. I only use the three, and would probably enjoy some of the other ones if I'd take the time to learn them. For instance, this paragraph uses the code "ol" before and after. And unlike the blockquote, it maintains the same font as the regular formatting. (Which is good if you don't like that pica-type font in the blockquotes

Learn something new every day, eh?


PS. I look forward to hearing your thoughts expanded.

Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution

Well said!

I'm not as eloquent as you are apparently.

wolfe's picture

Samuel 8:1-22

Let that be the end of the argument of what "God" wants.

It is a clear statement that the desire for a King(archy) is a rejection of God.

It is also clear that God intends to make them see the folly of their choice through the harm that will befall them at the whim of the king.

God did not intend for the Jews to have a king, they insisted that they must have a king and God said, let them have their way, and the evils that accompany it.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

If you have a very strong

If you have a very strong voluntary theocracy and theocratic common law(plus constant divine intervention) like that of the Old Testament, anarchism can work. The people of Israel did not have faith that anarchy was enough to protect them from the trained professional armies surrounding them. If God was not on their side, it would not have been enough.

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

Doesn't that sound like the current argument?

God isn't enough to protect us from our enemies, so we must have a government in place to protect us. And God is clear about the punishment that falls to those who demand a king for the sake of protection.

Btw, I am an atheist so this is all irrelevant to me. I just got tired of seeing the many debates on what God wanted about government and the one place that God actually made his position known not getting a mention.

I have read the Bible cover to cover many times, spent long hours in study and contemplation and research... Which is why I became an atheist.. ;) lol
The Philosophy Of Liberty -

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

There is no American

There is no American Exceptionalism when it comes to God, while there was Israeli exceptionalism(maybe still is, I dunno).

I am a Christian, but I think I am addressing the issue objectively since we ARE talking about Bible interpretation here. I don't use God as a justification for my minarchism, I use empirical and utilitarian arguments.

Ventura 2012

So it's utilitarian to steal from people?

What verse in the Bible covers the utitarian exceptions for the 10 commandments? You know, the ones like thou shalt not steal, except... or thou shalt not murder, except? I think I need to reread them. Heck, I could be wrong after all.

I apologize upfront

Because I haven't read the entire thread yet - but to your question about stealing - King David was the apple of God's eye (per scripture) and David stole the shewbread from the temple to eat because he was hungry. Did God punish David for this? NO. Actually, it is mentioned in the New Testament. As for the killing - God told his people to kill the Ammorites - all of them - including kill the women and children too. There are more examples.

Detective Krum Investigates:

Detective Krum Investigates:

Fighting for anarchism is a

Fighting for anarchism is a utilitarian anathema because the IQ bell curve will not allow people to understand libertarian political arguments, much less capitalist economic arguments. This stuff is way over the head of even most college students. That is why we will never have anarchism, which should be enough for you. Atrickpay posted a nice article on this topic in the blog section, check it out.

Ventura 2012

You didn't answer my questions

I asked two questions above that you didn't answer.

I'm not going to answer your

I'm not going to answer your inane questions. I've already admitted many times that government is theft/force/criminal whatever, but that it is necessary. You insult me over and over by insinuating that I have not dealt with these pre-K level criticisms of minarchism.

Ventura 2012

You claim to be christian in one sentence...

...then you claim that stealing and murder are necessary in the next.

And I bet you'd like for no one to point this out, and I'll also bet you wish your ad-hominem attacks on the those who do point it out, like me, would deflect some of the well deserved criticism of your blatant hypocrisy.

Too bad. Stop advocating for theft and murder.

"Give to Caeser what is

"Give to Caeser what is Caesers, give to God what is God's."

The Bible is not anti-state, therefore the Bible does not view the state as violating the ten commandments. God has commanded wars of genocide in the Old Testament. The Bible is not libertarian. The Bible does not respect "acts between consenting adults" lol. I removed my utilitarian political views from my religious views a long time ago, because New Testament Christianity is not a political document.

Ventura 2012

Give To Caeser

Give to caeser what is his.... My money and labor are not caeser's. It's all about interpretation. As for God, I thought he owned everything so I can't give him much.

You still don't answer my questions

And I have another one for you too. I've just started calling myself Caesar. All that stuff you have in your possession that you think is yours is actually mine. Give it to me, now. The Bible says you have to.

apparently when I answer

apparently when I answer your questions you will just deny that I did it, so why bother. You are either extremely disingenuous or not very bright.

Ventura 2012

Actually, you didn't answer the questions I posed yet.

Shall I retype them, or can you go back up a few posts and find them?

And you're trying to call me not too bright? Comical.

"What verse in the Bible

"What verse in the Bible covers the utitarian exceptions for the 10 commandments? You know, the ones like thou shalt not steal, except... or thou shalt not murder, except? I think I need to reread them. Heck, I could be wrong after all."

The post-New Testament Bible is not a political document, and the Bible allowed for governments to "murder" and "steal" in the Old Testament(although goods that were stolen from conquered people were usually burned, but that doesn't excuses the original act). I already said all of this. If you want specific verses, I cant give them to you but others here can. Your trolling cannot be satisfied, yet the shmuck that I am, I keep feeding it. (maybe its because I always want the last word :)

Ventura 2012

I appreciate your actually answering the questions I posed.

I have only one more.

Are you saying that you believe God wants you to impose your will on me?

I answered them several

I answered them several times, I basically copy/pasted that post from previous posts in resposne to those questions. I am having serious deja vu from a week ago when I had a similar conversation with atrickpay. I basically copy-pasted the exact same argument 3 times as he continued to not comprehend me(not that I am a clear writer), and then the third time it "clicked".

As to your new one, I have no idea, but I do know that he wanted the Israelites to impose their will on the Caananites.

You should read this post by atrickpay.


Ventura 2012

I wasn't asking what someone else's opinon was

I want to know if YOU believe that God wants YOU to claim dominion and control over ME.

That's all.

Already said I have no clue,

Already said I have no clue, no one knows the mind of God. Its a dumb question from a dumb troll.

Ventura 2012

You have no idea what you believe?

Seriously, you have no idea what you believe? And I didn't ask you what God thought or believed. I asked you what YOU thought and believed.

I'm done here, unless you'd like to continue.

You asked me what I believe

You asked me what I believe about what God believes. I have no clue about whether God wants me to "rule you", therefore I dont know. Its like me asking you "do you believe that Rudy Giuliani wants you dead." Maybe he is a eugenicists, maybe not. "I don't know" is as good an answer as any(unless you do know).

I wonder how narrow this thing will go?

Ventura 2012