Kiu Ghesik wrote:Merrill wrote:Glad I could help
Yes, Jesus drove out those that had desecrated the Temple. This was an example of an individual enforcing property rights. The Temple is the House of the Lord. Jesus was declaring Himself as the Son of God, the owner of the property. He did not call for the Romans to use soldiers to clear out the tresspassers, although He would have been His right to do so.
I'm not sure that the Temple scene is an adequate justification of castle doctrine, especially given that the context of the scene most definitely isn't when he declared himself the son of God, an event which occurred both before and after but not during the scene, and since that modern interpretation of the concept of property rights didn't exist in Jesus' day. I'd like to ask you to explain this one, as well:
Matthew 22:21, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Does this not advocate for a submission to authority, as long as that authority does not permit one from carrying out their obligations as a Christian? And does that not mean that an authority attempting to metaphorically clear the temple- which for the sake of argument we will assume doesn't refer to property rights in the good ol' "get off my property" sense- would be just to do so? For example, a Christian-Socialist government going about a wealth-redistribution project?
He had repeatedly declared Himself as the Son of God all throughout his Ministry, as you said. I don't think it necessary for Him to do so explicitly in every situation. As for property rights not existing at the time, that seems to be quite a reach. The Law of Moses has a great deal to say about how to earn and manage Property, the sacrifice of your property to God, and the punishments of those who steal from others.
If a government actually created wealth, then it could distribute that without being immoral. That has never happened. When Socialists nationalize companies, they are stealing from the creators. When they tax, they are taking by force what someone else earned. When they inflate the money supply, they devalue what money already exists.
If a man robs another man, the Law punishes him. If a mob robs a man, then filters the money through clerks, each taking a bit, and finally a small part goes to "the poor"; why the mob praise themselves, and say that they have done Good. If something is immoral for an individual to do, how is it right for 51% to do?