Paul, you lost me there. I have not stepped back to objectively consider a greater philosophical perspective, and so have no idea where my viewpoint fits into a greater scheme of philosophical dialogue. Regardless I remain convinced of the need for greater love and compassion and social cooperation as I believe God desires. I have enjoyed our discussions as I am always interested in hearing how others see things in a different light. I may not agree, but I respect. God's blessings!

While I am disappointed in your decision to end our conversation, I am not surprised. The argument we are having, between Platonic ideology and Aristotelian abstraction, is nearly 2500 years old, and the greatest thinkers of human history have been wrestling with it since. In the same discussion, you see intended conceptual design that just needs our effort to bring to application, where I see flawed conception in need of revision or replacement to align with previous sense-perception and history. I regret that such an articulate and cordial believer in the former such as you will not continue our discourse on the matter, but nonetheless, I have also enjoyed our discussion. The blessings of God to you and yours, Paul

Paul, Thank you for your perspective. Interesting. Our cultural views and values are radically different. Your concern seems to focus on the rule of government versus freedom of the individual. You see government as a necessary evil, but you seem opposed to anything that has to do with collective responsibility because, I posit, you see government unable to replace the (f)utility of one-to-one relationships. Additionally you go further to view government as a source of oppression and tyranny, which openly and freely uses coercion and force on its citizenry. You seem to feel that citizens of a society, rather than voluntarily belonging to a social compact whereby they willing forfeit unilateral action and freedom, are instead tyrannized because of imposed rules and laws, and hence the infringement of individual liberties. Essentially you are concerned about authority being enacted over individual freedom, and are concerned with the law that oppresses the people and which puts restrictions on the actions of individuals. Furthermore you suggest the enforcement of laws and rule of government is outright tyrannical. Paul, you go so far as suggesting that the rule of government is terror-based and is enforced at the cost of the blood of its citizenry. What I think what libertarians miss appreciating is that society is formed as a social compact for both individual and collective interests. A government too is elected in a democracy to represent its citizens both individually and collectively. In our contemporary society, people do not stand in opposition to the government, or vice versa. Government is designed by the people and is for the people, thereby representing their interests. Citizens voluntarily agree, for their own self-interest as well as the interest of their fellow citizens, to abide by the decisions of our elected government as well as the rules of the social compact (i.e., laws) and their enforcement. Consider too that people of a social compact today are not voiceless or powerless. There is a built-in recourse to protect individual freedom and liberty within the confines of the collective compact. Courts are in place, for example, to appeal disputes amongst individuals as well as disputes with government and the nation's laws. I see government designed to be an enlightened management of the interests of its people – all of its people. I do not think most people see government and laws as means of coercion and force, or tyranny and terror. Hence there certainly is no justification of the latter as a role of government in my mind or in the mind of most. So I struggle with the idea that government works in opposition to its people or worse that it uses force to impose its will - with the exception of holding law-breakers accountable. (Note that even dissenters are allowed to oppose societal laws and governance, especially seen in the protection of free speech; however they naturally are held accountable for their actions if they break the nation's law.) I would concur that we ought to follow God's natural laws intended for the good of mankind, but even Scriptures teach that we also are to be cognizant of authority and faithful and obedient to those who rule over us. Indeed God is the ultimate judge, but God Himself has acknowledged and promoted human organization and governance. Well, we could continue to go back and forth on this subject, Paul. However the above is a flavor of my beliefs regarding societal collective responsibilities in contrast to your own view. I do not expect you to agree, but you sought my input, and there it lies. Interesting to see such divergent worldviews. Blessings to you, Paul.

Dear John, I have additional notes to make regarding your rebuttal, but this one comes to the top. Since it is the underpinning of your argument, I feel that I should address it first and immediately. Continuously through your post you state the word "collective," and this concept does not exist in a world made up of individuals who do not and cannot share thoughts directly (and from that point, please, if you watch Star Trek, consider the Borg). In a monarchy, everyone is oppressed except the king, and in a democracy, everyone is oppressed except the majority. This seems fine if one is in the majority (or is king), but for those told they may not act or deadly force will be used upon them, it is nothing but tyranny. Admittedly, God created us to be in relationship with Him and one another, but haven't you noticed that God never forces anyone into those relationships? It is our personal responsibility to obey His will and maintain those relationships, and no matter which laws government institutes, it cannot force us to love one another. Honestly, my problem with your view is not in the good that may be done through government, but in those who are oppressed and tyrannized under its rule. You can certainly justify loving others in what you vote to give, but how can you justify the use of terror or, worse, force on those who choose no to do so? Should we not follow God's example and, as the saying goes, give them the rope with which they will hang themselves? Is it not better to allow the natural order God created to punish those who refuse rather than soiling our hands with their blood? Aren't we called to trust those who disobey to our Lord, not to foolish human hands? I again reaffirm my desire for mutual understanding in this message, and if you found some of what I have had to say offensive, I apologize for evoking that emotion in you, brother. It has been made clear to me recently that I am not the most tactful person, but my wish to understand is genuine. Thank you so much for indulging me so far, and your insightful remarks will continue to be appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me; please give me a few days to digest your response. I am going through some very difficult times in my life right now, and your patience is appreciated.

Paul, a couple of fundamental points to start. You stated that God “knew all the suffering and pain we would cause one another if He gave us freedom. He still gave it to us; therefore, the sum total of human suffering (past, present, and future) is obviously less important to God than basic human freedom.” Paul, I would suggest that God gave us free will, rather than freedom. He gave us free will all the while desiring us to faithfully to be in right relationship with Him and to obey His commands. I do not agree with your conclusion that human suffering is less important to God than human freedom. God has given us free will to choose right from wrong, good from evil, which is not the same as freedom per se. He does not condone human suffering as a consequence of freedom, or free will, and would not cast it as secondary to freedom to do what one pleases. You go on to suggest that “Obviously, since all the suffering arose from freedom, one must find a limiting factor, and that factor is Property, i.e. one only has total liberty with one's property; of course, now we must consider the question of how something in nature, thus given by the Lord and by no human hand, can become a person's property.” I would agree that suffering does arise as a consequence of freedom (or free will) when the will of one competes with another. I am not sure though why you choose property as the measure of freedom or liberty, but still suffice it to say it is a measure of the self-interest that drives the Adamic man. As you argue, property can come to represent something we attain and guard possessively, but I ask whether this is right according to God's design and will? Did He not make us communal in nature – despite our free will? God created us to be in relationship with both Himself and with others. Furthermore, He charged us with stewardship of His creation. As individuals in a collective body we come together in a social compact – and hence have a collective responsibility – to counter that very free will that divides us. Initially then I might assume that we are not far off in the reasons for a social compact and for the requirement of a government, but as I address your argument further, I see a significant shift in focusing on the centrality of the individual. You argue that “efficient government makes this [use of force] its only purpose, allowing the citizens to freely act otherwise, which is in accordance with God's Will and revealed Values.” I would question the contemporary relevance of the assertion that the use of force for intervention between individuals is the sole purpose of government, given the complexity of civil society today. Though I would concede that individuals are free to live within the parameters and confines of our collective responsibility as a society that lives “in accordance with God's Will and revealed Values,” I must emphatically point to our God-derived conscience and stewardship, and His call to compassion, love and social and economic justice. You go on to conclude, “Because the origin of government is, as Locke has shown, an overwhelming force to end threats to its citizens' liberty and property, it is unsuited to other uses, and since government makes use of the very tactics that it outlaws in order to outlaw them, its only moral purpose IS to outlaw those tactics.” Here you seem to suggest two things, which I disagree with: first, the role of government is limited to control and protection of individual liberty and property and hence ought not to extend any further than that, and second, that the government because of its limited defined role, as you see it, works out of fear. As I believe I have advocated before, I take a more enlightened view of government, one which is akin to what the nation's founders envisioned who were greatly influenced by Locke and Rousseau. Government is neither limited to the role of an enforcement agency in its protection of its citizens, nor is it motivated to ...

Paul, I am trying to find time to respond to your post. Hopefully soon.

John, I still eagerly await your response to my last post; your perspective on the points I've outlined would be very enlightening, not to mention helpful in our mutual quest for understanding. Thanks.

Praise God, Terri. Praise God for His love, compassion, and mercy. Pray that we all can be obedient to God's will, that we can reflect His love, and be faithful stewards. I pray that we can open our eyes, as you say, and be effective as His vessels in bringing about justice and compassion in this world. Thank you for your input. And thank you for your gift.

John? John, are you still reading these posts? I have something I want to say to you, and I hope you are listening. I have no other way to reach you. I'm a very recent subscriber to her.meneutics, and when the "How Canada Convinced Me Not to Vote" article dropped into my email my interest was piqued. I wanted to hear what my Christian brothers and sisters "across the aisle" were saying in the last few days before the election. The title itself triggered a flicker of hope in my heart. Though I was braced to not hear much that would be soothing to my ears, I was hoping I would find that flicker of questioning some of the main line beliefs of the Religious Right, in whom I have been sooo disappointed. I read for hours, spurred on by flickers that I saw, and also that by and large, the conversations were basically relaxed and respectful. Anyway, back to point...I finally came to your posting, and, John, everything changed. I voraciously read (more than once) everything to the end of the postings...the last holding your sage words. Way before I got to the end, though, my heart broke and the tears flowed, tears of gratitude. I have felt so between two worlds. What does it mean when you get a vacant stare upon the suggestion to truly born again Christians that the "religious right" that so enrage you, nevertheless, are our brothers and sisters in Christ? You, John, have given me hope that the long awaited knitting back together of the body of Christ in this country is on the way. God has arranged it so that the stark contrasts so evident in this watershed election, are going to work to open eyes that have been protectively shut, bound in the fear of perceived encroaching danger. There is no danger for us who are in Christ Jesus, who walk after the spirit and not after the flesh. The danger is only in not opening our eyes for fear. Fear not! We are brothers and sisters in Christ. Are we inadvertently holding back the return of the Christ by our divisiveness? by our selfishness? by our fear? Thanks John. I feel I have been to the mountaintop and, yes, the ice is thawing. Hanta yo! Aslan is on the move! This is my gift to you, John, and your beloved wife: Your Presence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=prbw1s5gVX8#! With love, Terri