Why Did We See The Industrial Revolution And Technological Revolution In The Last 150 Years?

I would suggest that compulsory education systems in either prescription will lead to tyranny given enough time

Based on your posts, you seem to promote libertarianism.....

Although seems in the direction of via individualism?

Jesus commands us "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" Luke 6:31

We need each other to do that command.....that is: cooperation, collectivism, interdependence....

I tend to equate individualism with being passive... inaction, no action on the welfare of others...

"Do not do unto others" is a passive, inaction.....

"Do unto others" is active, there is action taken.....

Love is always active.
 
Do you believe there is a hybrid form of democracy, with elements of direct and representative, which would offer more protection from the tyranny of the majority? Second, what is the reason horizontal separation of powers would fail eventually? Could it be preservation of power or the coalescing of platforms to maintain electability?

Can true autonomy in the individual states exist, and also be restricted to support strictly-liberal-ethics that derive from Natural Rights Theory, the non-aggression principle, and property? I think so but with much education and a new generation that will embrace sound ethics instead of utilitarian gains.

Is it possible that Henry's love for decentralization in the Articles of Confederation was yielded in a superior ratification but lacked the majestic emerald of the existing Constitution which is the Bill of Rights? Madison in part moved his pen to ethics by engineering strategic restriction, and Jefferson would influence afar. Yet it was marginal in delivering much slavery and abandoned ethics further to centralize economic power. I would suggest that centralized economic-compromise is what created the need for the horizontal separation of powers. For interstate commerce, foreign trade tariffs and arbitrary economics moves to despotism in history faithfully.

Thus autonomous decentralization mixed with strategic central restriction is critical to stop the creep of majoritarianism; however all apathetic societies will in ignorance request much despotism to trample their own ethical protections.
 
Based on your posts, you seem to promote libertarianism.....
Although seems in the direction of via individualism?

I am a Classical Liberal but hold fast to sound ethics coming from Natural Rights Theory.

Jesus commands us "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise"

We need each other to do that command.....that is: cooperation, collectivism, interdependence....

I tend to equate individualism with being passive... inaction, no action on the welfare of others...

"Do not do unto others" is a passive, inaction.....

"Do unto others" is active, there is action taken.....

Love is always active.

I agree that the action for love, cooperation, and even in many situations “voluntary collection” (meaning that a church or group can collect money from individuals who “voluntarily” give money for initiatives unto good works) are good.

Will you agree with me that “voluntary collection” and “voluntary giving” is quite different than political compulsory collectivism, which abandons all sound ethics from scripture and natural rights theory, and will cast society into the jaws of despotic monsters for vicious consumption?
 
Scripture states we have only one natural right.

To die.

Wrong! God created life not death. It was mans sin that brought in death. Death then is a "judgment" from God and not a "right".

Gen 1:27 ............
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. "

Adam and Eve were created alive, and they were created to live forever in their physical bodies, on the condition; that they did not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was in the midst of the Garden of Eden.

If I am incorrect please state the Book, chapter and verse please that you are referring to.
 
Natural Rights Theory.

Rights, duties and obligations….

I was about to reply that I agree as well with the “Natural rights theory”….

but that comment/post#65 made me think, not that am agreeing , just made me think:

If one thing is a gift, say life, even what properties we have…… to protect life, to protect properties…

Exercising those gifts: is it more of a right…. or more so a duty…..
 
Dave Lucas, post: There was nothing standing against ingenuity in China. They invented many things we take for granted today long before the West did. This seems to contradict your next paragraph:

The insular and isolationist society of the time. Autocratic rule and the desire to control by the Emperors led to the ingenuity being withheld. Things leaked out along the Silk and Spice routes. But it was nothing like the open ideals of the West.

That was NOT the Church that did that. They kept even the Bible from people by only making sure peerage and clergy had access to it. It was the humanism that led to the Renaissance that opened the doors for that sharing and bringing knowledge and The Bible to the masses. To the common man. By humanism, I assume you mean (wikipedia) Early humanists saw no conflict between reason and their Christian faith. They inveighed against the abuses of the Church, but not against the Church itself, much less against religion. For them, the word "secular" carried no connotations of disbelief – that would come later, in the nineteenth century. In the Renaissance to be secular meant simply to be in the world rather than in a monastery.

We can thank forward thinkers, the merchant class that rose up in the late Middle Ages and emergence of rebellion against feudal ideals for the open atmosphere that led to such great revolutions of thought, science, industry, faith and politics. This would be in large part due to the Protestant Reformation. Without the Reformation, there would not have been Bible believing, persecuted, independent and freedom loving Christian settlers bent on making the Christian faith a reality. These were the people willing to abandon civilization for the promise of the New World to escape the overbearance of those in Europe.

If these things had been in China, the world would have developed far sooner than it had. Perhaps even reaching this level of tech by the midpoint of last century or sooner.

And a China free from socialist totalitarianism would be awesome. A united Korea would be good too. Which is why I postulate Christianity as being the driving force for freedom, of which they lacked.

Who knows by today in that alternate time line we may have had a worldwide government.

But sadly, it did not come to pass due to the minds of fallen men.
 
Rights, duties and obligations….

I was about to reply that I agree as well with the “Natural rights theory”….

but that comment/post#65 made me think, not that am agreeing , just made me think:

If one thing is a gift, say life, even what properties we have…… to protect life, to protect properties…

Exercising those gifts: is it more of a right…. or more so a duty…..

Life is a gift, we have to right to it. Whether we see it in scripture, nor even in the cosmos. No guarantee of life.
In scripture we know everything we receive is a blessing from God.

So the food is a gift.
The money we get is a gift.
Whatever we buy with that money is a gift.

We have NO rights to it. At any point it can all be taken away by God. Job proved that.

God wants us to have a nice life, but it is not a right.

That is why when I hear the chant of entitlement I feel the need to remind people, you do not deserve it, nor have a right to it.

Only death is assured.
 
There are many well written books, that make the case for Christianity being a positive influence wherever it has spread to. This includes democratic and republic forms of government and laws that allow for the freedom and liberty of the individual. Great nations have arisen, (and fallen) according to their faith or lack thereof in God. :)
 
Dave Lucas, post: There was nothing standing against ingenuity in China. They invented many things we take for granted today long before the West did. This seems to contradict your next paragraph:

The insular and isolationist society of the time. Autocratic rule and the desire to control by the Emperors led to the ingenuity being withheld. Things leaked out along the Silk and Spice routes. But it was nothing like the open ideals of the West.

That was NOT the Church that did that. They kept even the Bible from people by only making sure peerage and clergy had access to it. It was the humanism that led to the Renaissance that opened the doors for that sharing and bringing knowledge and The Bible to the masses. To the common man. By humanism, I assume you mean (wikipedia) Early humanists saw no conflict between reason and their Christian faith. They inveighed against the abuses of the Church, but not against the Church itself, much less against religion. For them, the word "secular" carried no connotations of disbelief – that would come later, in the nineteenth century. In the Renaissance to be secular meant simply to be in the world rather than in a monastery.

We can thank forward thinkers, the merchant class that rose up in the late Middle Ages and emergence of rebellion against feudal ideals for the open atmosphere that led to such great revolutions of thought, science, industry, faith and politics. This would be in large part due to the Protestant Reformation. Without the Reformation, there would not have been Bible believing, persecuted, independent and freedom loving Christian settlers bent on making the Christian faith a reality. These were the people willing to abandon civilization for the promise of the New World to escape the overbearance of those in Europe.

If these things had been in China, the world would have developed far sooner than it had. Perhaps even reaching this level of tech by the midpoint of last century or sooner.

And a China free from socialist totalitarianism would be awesome. A united Korea would be good too. Which is why I postulate Christianity as being the driving force for freedom, of which they lacked.

Who knows by today in that alternate time line we may have had a worldwide government.

But sadly, it did not come to pass due to the minds of fallen men.

Ingenuity does not automatically equate to success in a global arena.

That is why I used the word ingenuity. It simply means they were smart enough to create things and ideas.

Has nothing to do with successful application nor adoption.

By humanism I mean that they saw the reality of life around them. There was no conflict with the scripture, but it was not based on scripture. If it was based solely on scripture, humanists would have sought to overthrow the sovereigns of Europe and install new autocrats as that was the model of The Bible, a monarchist system.

Instead they went back to heretical ideas of government. Democratic reforms, republics and oligarchies. Because The Kingdom will not be democratic (hence why I cannot fathom why Americans Christians are so fired up about democracy), nor a republic and certainly not an oligarchy. It is an Autocracy. A totalitarian one at that.

The reformation was only in spiritual matters and the governance of The Church. These ideals were taking root long before Calvin and Company arrived on the scene. Things were changing. Economy, ideas from long suppressed people were coming to light and the influence of Islam via the crusades. These Muslims had held onto old knowledge that was lost or suppressed by Europe as being heretical.

So the reformation was only part of it, but was not the beginning, nor the major part. People yearn to be free, and nothing will stop that.
The Soviets found that out. And the Chinese are fighting against it. But it will come. You cannot keep people down forever.

And by the way, most people went to the New World mainly because there was money to be made. Riches will drive people to distance places. Think California Gold Rush.

"Which is why I postulate Christianity as being the driving force for freedom, of which they lacked."

Worldly speaking, what did Christianity ever free?

Seemingly didn't work for the slaves. That was humanism that started that removal. In fact Christians pushed up slavery as biblical because they held to the OT scriptures, hence Levitical thinking.

Did not work for peaceful resolution. Christendom has been a great backer of war. From the god is with us crowd to the praise the lord and pass the ammunition folks.

How about medical advances? Nope Christians have been against blood transfusions, transplants, fertilisation, vaccines, antibiotics and genetics.

I won't go into science, that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. (Cough, Galileo, Copernicus Cough)

So they were not much about freedom. Well freedom to get bigger perhaps, but not for the benefit of human life.
 
There are many well written books, that make the case for Christianity being a positive influence wherever it has spread to. This includes democratic and republic forms of government and laws that allow for the freedom and liberty of the individual. Great nations have arisen, (and fallen) according to their faith or lack thereof in God. :)

Democracy is NOT scriptural, neither are republics.

Scripturally there is only one TRUE king, God.

In the OT God allowed men to make nations but warned it was a bad thing.

Freedom and liberty was not espoused in the Bible, save for freedom from death through Grace.

Politically, no such thing.
 
We have NO rights to it. At any point it can all be taken away by God. Job proved that.

I agree....

Am not sure how to term it, but I think I read one theologian describes something and used the phrase “vertical relationship” and “horizontal relationship”…

IMO:

Similar to the “sum of all the law and the prophets"
The first great commandment is a vertical relationship…
While the second is a horizontal relationship….

Man on life as to the Giver, it is blessings, a gift, a privilege, a blessing…
Only the Giver has the right to take it….

Thus, another man has no right to take life even his own…. and one has a right to protect it from those who have no right to take it….

Thus, right to life, to property is just between man, that is: a horizontal relationship…

IMO...
 
Last edited:
Thus, another man has no right to take life even his own…. and one has a right to protect it from those who have no right to take it….

And we need not protect it as well, because in Matthew 10:28 we do not fear that they kill the body. because it is meaningless. Only protect the soul.

That is why Paul said we do not wrestle with flesh and blood as Christians. But against powers of darkness.

Our belongings and bodies are immaterial. Only our souls count. And so too the worldly things of others do not matter.

Only worldly people need worry about worldly things.
 
Ingenuity does not automatically equate to success in a global arena.

That is why I used the word ingenuity. It simply means they were smart enough to create things and ideas.

Has nothing to do with successful application nor adoption.

By humanism I mean that they saw the reality of life around them. There was no conflict with the scripture, but it was not based on scripture. If it was based solely on scripture, humanists would have sought to overthrow the sovereigns of Europe and install new autocrats as that was the model of The Bible, a monarchist system.

Instead they went back to heretical ideas of government. Democratic reforms, republics and oligarchies. Because The Kingdom will not be democratic (hence why I cannot fathom why Americans Christians are so fired up about democracy), nor a republic and certainly not an oligarchy. It is an Autocracy. A totalitarian one at that.

The reformation was only in spiritual matters and the governance of The Church. These ideals were taking root long before Calvin and Company arrived on the scene. Things were changing. Economy, ideas from long suppressed people were coming to light and the influence of Islam via the crusades. These Muslims had held onto old knowledge that was lost or suppressed by Europe as being heretical.

So the reformation was only part of it, but was not the beginning, nor the major part. People yearn to be free, and nothing will stop that.
The Soviets found that out. And the Chinese are fighting against it. But it will come. You cannot keep people down forever.

And by the way, most people went to the New World mainly because there was money to be made. Riches will drive people to distance places. Think California Gold Rush.

"Which is why I postulate Christianity as being the driving force for freedom, of which they lacked."

Worldly speaking, what did Christianity ever free?

Seemingly didn't work for the slaves. That was humanism that started that removal. In fact Christians pushed up slavery as biblical because they held to the OT scriptures, hence Levitical thinking.

Did not work for peaceful resolution. Christendom has been a great backer of war. From the god is with us crowd to the praise the lord and pass the ammunition folks.

How about medical advances? Nope Christians have been against blood transfusions, transplants, fertilisation, vaccines, antibiotics and genetics.

I won't go into science, that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. (Cough, Galileo, Copernicus Cough)

So they were not much about freedom. Well freedom to get bigger perhaps, but not for the benefit of human life.
There isn't anything special or better about western or American people. Had China or Persia been formed on the ideals of Christianity, they would have had these remarkable breakthroughs and led the world instead. That is the point of this thread, that Christian ideals were the guiding principles which caused the blessings from God.

The early humanist view based on scripture would not favor a human monarch or autocrat. God's first government for man was the judges and priests. Only by the desire of the Israelites did He allow kings to rule His people. God was very clear in His warnings about having a king.
1 Samuel 8 :9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”.....
18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
So clearly God was against human autocratic rule.
Both Peter and Paul instructed us to obey our masters and authorities, as long as it was not against God's Word. The Reformation showed that they were following that by accepting the rulers who were appointed over them, but not the authorities (the pope and catholic bishops) who were condoning unbiblical practices.

God again gives us an example of proper government in the New Testament. The only true King had left this world and did not instruct the disciples to make a king in his place. The twelve became the governing authority and delegated seven helpers later on. Paul goes into detail on the leaders of each church, i.e. deacons, elders, pastors and/or teachers. Autocracy had no part in man's responsibility in governance.
So from the founding of the church, we were to have representatives to carry out day to day decision making.

On the reasons why people came to the New World, many of the first in the English Colonies were persecuted Christians. These were the first to come for the expressed purpose of freedom and were the backbone of the driving force for a free country. Here is an excerpt from The First Frontier: Life in Colonial America- John Chester Miller (1966). "A strong believer in the notion of rule by divine right, Charles I, King of England and Scotland, persecuted religious dissenters. Waves of repression led to the migration of about 20,000 Puritans to New England between 1629 and 1642, where they founded multiple colonies. Later in the century, the new Pennsylvania colony was given to William Penn in settlement of a debt the king owed his father. Its government was set up by William Penn in about 1682 to become primarily a refuge for persecuted English Quakers; but others were welcomed. Baptists, Quakers and German and Swiss Protestants flocked to Pennsylvania. The lure of cheap land, religious freedom and the right to improve themselves with their own hand was very attractive."

Freedom was the force to free slaves, and the causation of the respect for women. Christian freedom birthed freedom for all, as much as we have, and now seem to be losing to atheist and secular would be tyrants.
 
Scripture states we have only one natural right.
To die.

Inalienable Natural Rights with authority are delegated to mankind in Genesis in this natural world, yet in the salvation covenant we "voluntarily" then transfer "back to Him" the natural delegation of authority for property ownership and become His obedient servants readied for His purposes.

Though God owns the universe He delegated property and authority to natural man. A man's or woman's corporeal body, the earth and all that is in it, is delegated with authority to mankind "to own it in the natural;" yet the ownership is temporary till the corporeal body deceases or the earth is transfigured for His new reign. Thus the old cliché, "A lease on life." Yet the old cliché is for the wicked and not the saved, for the saved have no lease but His.

As a Christian we have no rights in our new contract with God after salvation, we only have a our obedience to do as He commands, and in His word we are required unto obedience to honour His delegation of authority to mankind. Yet with our contract with God where our authority is given back to God, let us be vigilant that we made no bargain with evil men, and if evil men commit arbitrary acts of despotism, then they do it to their own destruction; for God will avenge His own in time.

Thus if one can ponder the purity of what is "Natural Rights Theory" from scripture, then our obedience in our covenant of salvation is to respect the deontological boundaries of Natural Rights Theory "ethically," and to peacefully challenge all despotism from men that would defy sound "ethics." For our calling is not to hostile revelry against authority, but with courage unto ethics, as it was with ethics that Christ was murdered and Stephen was stoned to death.

With wisdom, can it also be understood that Natural Rights Theory is also delegated to man by God to "justly" defend the virtuous, who He owns, and deploys on earth for virtuous ministry, honest business and individual living? For when Individual Natural Rights are destroyed with despotism coming from men, and justified in the minds of the Utilitarian, then no individual societal application for "just-law" is possible as a myriad of despotic legal-plunder will melt society to poverty and calamity. For violence will always destroy the innocent, if violence is justified in the law, seeking the compromised greatest good for the greatest number coming from those who sell proposed good outcomes at the expense of ethical liberty.
 
Rights, duties and obligations….

I was about to reply that I agree as well with the “Natural rights theory”….

but that comment/post#65 made me think, not that am agreeing , just made me think:

If one thing is a gift, say life, even what properties we have…… to protect life, to protect properties…

Exercising those gifts: is it more of a right…. or more so a duty…..

Is it possible to agree that "salvation is a voluntary contract?" Yet what is the contract for? Can it be possible that it is a contract regarding a persons life and Who will now "own it", and have "authority over it."

When you are born, you are delegated certain inalienable rights "authority and sovereignty" over your property (your first property is your body). However after salvation you become "obedient property of Christ."

Yet salvation is a loss of authority and sovereignty in relationship with God but not to earthly men. Your body, your faculties, your skills, your talents and any physical property honestly obtained is "yours", as "you will own it;" yet upon salvation you give all that you "are" and all that you "own" to "Christ."

Gifts that are allocated to His servants.

If a group of impoverished starving peasants were to be invited to live in the greatest, most just, and most prosperous kingdom on earth, but also agreed to become the kings bond-servants to be owned, would not the opportunity cost them everything? Also if death was imminent amidst starvation, would not the offer be a gift of life? Also after accepting and the king set them up in fine houses as family and then gave them meat, excellent foods, work, purpose and even music, would not all goodly things sent be gifts? Yet who owns? Is it not the king who now owns the servant and the gifts he sent them? For gifts are delegations to the obedient where they are commissioned to manage and enjoy what God has given them.
Also in time will not those who rejected the invitation in their stubbornness, then die of starvation? Yet admittedly, those that starved did own their own bodies till they died, yet they owned a temporary vapour that disappears.

Yet also can this analogy move to spiritual application for ethics to stand?
 
Yet also can this analogy move to spiritual application for ethics to stand?
Amen.

Philippians 4:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
 
Before beating Christianity up for having been involved in slavery in the PAST, let's look at an article from October, 2013.
Hong Kong (CNN) -- A new report claiming to be the most comprehensive look at global slavery says 30 million people are living as slaves around the world.
The Global Slavery Index, published by the Australia-based Walk Free Foundation, lists India as the country with by far the most slaves, with an estimated nearly 14 million, followed by China (2.9 million) and Pakistan (2.1 million).
The top 10 countries on its list of shame accounted for more than three quarters of the 29.8 million people living in slavery, with Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia, Thailand, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar and Bangladesh completing the list.

Christianity has lived up to its ideals over time, paving the way for freedom. No other religion has done that. Christians in times past and still today are flawed human beings, capable of wrongheaded decisions and holding self serving beliefs based on flawed biblical interpretation.
 
Top