BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: RandyPNW on February 14, 2022, 06:12:11 PM
-
I apologize if this isn't particularly relevant to biblical discussions. It is, however, relevant to my own participation in them. I've been completely immersed in the current unraveling of the Russian Hoax scandal in the US. Before and during the Trump presidency there was an active conspiracy, by the Democrat Party, and Hillary Clinton in particular, to skew the voters' attitude towards Trump as a traitor to US concerns, as a seedy "friend" of Putin and Russia.
This is now coming to light under a special prosecutor appointed just before Trump left office. Durham has uncovered a plot to spy on Trump--something Trump had identified earlier but was laughed at in the media. Trump was right--he was in fact spied on in a conspiracy to taint him and destroy his ability to be reelected. Our media has been busy castigating anybody who forwards this "conspiracy theory" as propagandistic and misinformation. In case you're interested, here are a few of my favorite people who appear on Fox TV, and another who someone on a forum gave me.
rumble.com/vux8jn-ep.-1705-spygate-erupts-the-dan-bongino-show.html?mref=16emn&mc=6kk5f&fbclid=IwAR0JwgrZTiGgY0yoQBT3k5M2g8ZFlShyrmn2JAvB-D28ayK_Pr0UhBQtwdY
www.facebook.com/JaySekulow/videos/1384622091989357
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=search&v=486042876411438&external_log_id=56883682-da75-4fc9-87f4-f4bac9725a51&q=steve%20hilton
www.facebook.com/bennyjohnson/videos/659895278545320
-
That which is spoken in the darkness will be shouted from the rooftops
No need to fret because of evildoers
God’s got this
-
That which is spoken in the darkness will be shouted from the rooftops
No need to fret because if evildoers
God’s got this
Thanks brother! It sounds like you're on the right side of this? :)
-
I'm waiting for the arrests and THEN, see what msm say about the arrests ;)
EDIT: Oh wait, they helped (colluded) push the accusations against President Trump so I wonder if they'll push the truth as an attempt to "hide" their collusion. Or will they just remain silent, as the drip, drip, drip that Durham is pouring out... becomes a flood of information due to his investigation???
-
I'm waiting for the arrests and THEN, see what msm say about the arrests ;)
EDIT: Oh wait, they helped (colluded) push the accusations against President Trump so I wonder if they'll push the truth as an attempt to "hide" their collusion. Or will they just remain silent, as the drip, drip, drip that Durham is pouring out... becomes a flood of information due to his investigation???
Look what's happening in Canada! God help us if the govt. shuts down Durham and anybody on Social Media who continues to implicate the Govt. in this scandal! Pray, pray, pray! The Lord's will be done.
-
That which is spoken in the darkness will be shouted from the rooftops
No need to fret because if evildoers
God’s got this
Thanks brother! It sounds like you're on the right side of this? :)
Didn't know that we were choosing "sides":
Praying that God would have mercy on all of us, individually and nationally,
for our evil hearts and actions,
for our worship of political parties and political leaders,
for our reliance and faith on political solutions outside of God,
for our wringing of our hands in anxiety,
for our vilification of our "enemies" instead of our heartfelt and grateful prayers for their salvation,
for our idolatry in our worship of so-called media and journalism,
for the evil, vile, and ungodly things we say in our hearts and out of our blowholes about elected officials,
for our blood lust to finally "get even with them",
for our voyeuristic fascination with scandal, corruption, and the general sinful world in which we live,
for the desire for revenge,
all "in Jesus' name," of course, couched in the charade of "truth, justice, and the American way."
I am revolted and nauseated by the church in North America. Including the one I attend.
-
I'm waiting for the arrests and THEN, see what msm say about the arrests ;)
EDIT: Oh wait, they helped (colluded) push the accusations against President Trump so I wonder if they'll push the truth as an attempt to "hide" their collusion. Or will they just remain silent, as the drip, drip, drip that Durham is pouring out... becomes a flood of information due to his investigation???
Look what's happening in Canada! God help us if the govt. shuts down Durham and anybody on Social Media who continues to implicate the Govt. in this scandal! Pray, pray, pray! The Lord's will be done.
If it is the Lord's will that the Durham investigation is shut down, that social media censors anti-administration folks trying to implicate the FBI, the Clinton campaign, etc., so that the result is the utter destruction of the USofA in judgment for murdering 100 million babies, are you OK with that?
A paraphrase from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:
"Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of CORRUPTION [war] may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the sin of abortion [bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk], and until every drop of blood drawn with the [ABORTIONISTS' SCALPEL] lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said f[our] three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
But we don't really believe that, do we?
-
I'm waiting for the arrests and THEN, see what msm say about the arrests ;)
EDIT: Oh wait, they helped (colluded) push the accusations against President Trump so I wonder if they'll push the truth as an attempt to "hide" their collusion. Or will they just remain silent, as the drip, drip, drip that Durham is pouring out... becomes a flood of information due to his investigation???
Look what's happening in Canada! God help us if the govt. shuts down Durham and anybody on Social Media who continues to implicate the Govt. in this scandal! Pray, pray, pray! The Lord's will be done.
If it is the Lord's will that the Durham investigation is shut down, that social media censors anti-administration folks trying to implicate the FBI, the Clinton campaign, etc., so that the result is the utter destruction of the USofA in judgment for murdering 100 million babies, are you OK with that?
A paraphrase from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:
"Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of CORRUPTION [war] may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the sin of abortion [bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk], and until every drop of blood drawn with the [ABORTIONISTS' SCALPEL] lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said f[our] three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
But we don't really believe that, do we?
I have consistently for many years supported God's will be done, and that if God allows sin to continue in a nation that judgment fall upon that nation, ending the tyranny, the sin, and all of the abuses. "Leave place for God's judgment" is what we read and what we should believe, yes. Astute of you to recognize that!
-
I'm waiting for the arrests and THEN, see what msm say about the arrests ;)
EDIT: Oh wait, they helped (colluded) push the accusations against President Trump so I wonder if they'll push the truth as an attempt to "hide" their collusion. Or will they just remain silent, as the drip, drip, drip that Durham is pouring out... becomes a flood of information due to his investigation???
Look what's happening in Canada! God help us if the govt. shuts down Durham and anybody on Social Media who continues to implicate the Govt. in this scandal! Pray, pray, pray! The Lord's will be done.
If it is the Lord's will that the Durham investigation is shut down, that social media censors anti-administration folks trying to implicate the FBI, the Clinton campaign, etc., so that the result is the utter destruction of the USofA in judgment for murdering 100 million babies, are you OK with that?
Yes.
However, I also can side with God exposing the evil in a manner that any narrative perpetrated by the news, cannot hide.
Personally, I believe this will render many who have tolerated the evil, i.e. so many that vote for leadership who push sin upon the USofA, those who don't vote at all and could have voted against those who push sin upon the USofA, those who are not resistant against what schools have been pushing through curriculum, etc, etc. I can go on.
Meaning, such exposure of this "real" evil that has been happening will cause reevaluation of morals and I believe this will cause many in the USofA to turn to God in repentance. Jonah and Samaria does come to mind. As well as other evidences in Scripture revealing God's sovereignty in removing nations from power (thus my YES in answering your question).
While the msm agencies can attempt to paint whatever perspective (narrative) they want (are ordered too), it is clear that those deep in evil will continue to do all they can to remain in that evil, more and more people in the USofA are waking up to the evil and these are those who I believe will turn and repent. If for the sole purpose of more being saved by God, hooah.
But I do believe it is for more.
-
Right, we are not to follow the mob in doing evil, nor are we to align with the popular majority to avoid saying unpopular, but true, things. Our witness is essential, or God would not have warned Ezekiel to be a faithful watchman, warning the country when the enemy was coming.
I believe there are way too many good people, both Christians and non-Christian innocents, who deserve to have their lives or be saved, to have our country blow up due to the influence of a powerful corrupt minority. So if the nation needs to suffer some "birth pains," then amen--bring it on, Lord. But the idea is to encourage our society to conform to God's Law so that we will *not* be judged.
-
Right, we are not to follow the mob in doing evil, nor are we to align with the popular majority to avoid saying unpopular, but true, things. Our witness is essential, or God would not have warned Ezekiel to be a faithful watchman, warning the country when the enemy was coming.
I believe there are way too many good people, both Christians and non-Christian innocents, who deserve to have their lives or be saved, to have our country blow up due to the influence of a powerful corrupt minority. So if the nation needs to suffer some "birth pains," then amen--bring it on, Lord. But the idea is to encourage our society to conform to God's Law so that we will *not* be judged.
I believe you know me enough when I say that to not do action against evil, is evil.
Will the USofA take the evidence and "act" against the evil or will the USofA keep it all behind the narrative and say it isn't real???
For many years, as I read scripture and came upon verses dealing with "delusion," I was not able to truly comprehend such a delusion. But viewing personally and/or testimonially (is this really a word?), I have begun to comprehend what delusion truly is. But what about those who do not have delusion over them and are only "ignorant" of the true evil happening? Those are the one's who can take such evidence as we find with Durham's report(s) and decide to turn away from it and turn to God and stand against such evil.
The problem is the msm and most social media (censor truth/boot those who speak truth) does all they can to prevent the ignorant from receiving the evidence, so no decision is able to be made by many.
Kinda like "Christians" under the delusion that they are not to witness Christ to the lost and I've heard every excuse so they don't have to act on the command of the Great Commission, thus many remain ignorant of Christ's saving grace.
-
Slug, yes I do know you, and in your post I agree with every part of what you're saying. We have a responsibility to preach the Gospel in the hope that some will be saved. And yes, the Durham report will discover who will respond to the evidence and who will not, no matter what. Some are genuinely naïve and need to know. Some don't care to know--I know some like that!
As you seem to indicate, there is a coverup. Unbelievably big news, and yet I have yet to see much coverage from the mainstream media. At least that's as of yesterday. I don't see how they can prevent the news from getting out? They can color it any way they want, but the people of America will be able to judge for themselves, I believe.
I've lived long enough to have gone through the Watergate scandal. I was a die-hard pro-Nixon in those days, although I was a bit young. I was very influenced by Pat Robertson (on TV), who turned me from my family upbringing in the Democratic Party to become a firm conservative Republican. I felt that Christian values were best being represented in the Republican Party, even if the values in the Democratic Party was more pro-people and seemingly more compassionate.
Since then, I question whether all the money being thrown at social welfare programs is real, in light of how the increase of wages is kept below the relative increase in inflation! ;) I continue to believe, however, there are some good moderate Democrats in that party. Manchin of W. VA seems like a reasonably moral man, and is willing to stand against the tide by the dictates of his own conscience.
-
I'm utterly amazed that Durham made some pretty specific charges, which do implicate spying on President Trump. For a day or so the mainstream media (here in the US) went quiet--crickets.
But occasionally I've seen the mean-spirited editorial comments that "lying Fox New broadcasters" and "conservative pro-Trump Republicans" deniers are claiming things completely off target. And in some of these articles little argument is made to even show how we are "lying!" It is said that collecting data is not "spying," even though the special prosecutor is indeed identifying it as such.
But what can be done in a Democracy where the leading party is corrupt and completely immersed in this "crime?" What can be done when the major media companies, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. are all married into the Democrat Party, and only cover pro-Democrat stories, and fill anti-Republican stories with shameless negative characterizations?
What can be done with extremely wealthy people like Soros, Bezos, and Gates who contribute money in support of the Democrats? What can be done when most of the major cable companies, MSNBC and CNN, carry anti-Trump rhetoric 24-7, and refuse to cover anything negative about Biden's son, about the failure of the Biden administration, and continually blame Trump, who is not now in power, for all the fires in town? I do believe, however, that some are beginning to carry negative Biden stories.
What can be done when the major social media companies like Twitter and Facebook censer the complaints coming from Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians in matters that are not favored by the establishment Democrats? Every story that does not agree with the boards of these organizations are phased out or rendered "misinformation!"
What can be done when the major newspapers like the New York times carries the same kind of pro-Democrat rhetoric, refusing to call a Democrat administration into account? How can anything be done to rein in authoritarianism in the Democrat Party when they control the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, as well as some powerful Supreme Court sentiments--moderate Conservatives on the Court tend to trend in the direction of the majority on legal decisions?
What can be done when the Congress controls the committee appointments, and the Senate decides what issues it wants to address, and who can be subpoenaed to testify before that body?
And worst of all, what if the Democrats have so infested the FBI and the CIA, and the intelligence networks, that secret investigations and FISA courts are being manipulated to sanction surveillance on their Republican counterparts to dig up dirt on them? Even if they get caught subverting the law, nothing is done to the guilty parties!
In this case, Clinton had a 2-prong attack, the appropriation of the Dirty Dossier, which was proven to be a fraud. But it enabled an investigation into Trump through a fraudulent application for a FISA warrant, to look for more dirt on Trump, leaked to the Press so that Trump would be advertised as guilty in advance to the American public.
And two, Clinton hired a guy to bring illegally-gotten data to the FBI and perhaps to the CIA to justify pursuing a secret FBI investigation of Trump, setting up some of Trumps people, illicitly, in the process. Whereas Democrats don't seem to do time, any Republicans caught up in this illicit investigation did do time!
It all makes me quite angry. And Democrats should be very afraid if the Republicans find themselves back in power in the Congress. A lot of this will come out. It just hasn't come out because the Media has convinced the public that Trump was bad. That's why he lost the election, and for that reason I think it was an illicit election, even though the Media calls someone like me a "denier" and a "liar."
When the public is told by leaks from a corrupt government that President Trump is corrupt and going to jail, then the election has been tainted and rendered invalid. And I do hope many Democrats go to jail for this, even though it will never happen as long as all these groups bind themselves together in this evil cause.
-
None of this comes as a huge surprise. Unfortunately the media won't report on it and I doubt if it will have any lasting consequences. Sad, but true.
-
None of this comes as a huge surprise. Unfortunately the media won't report on it and I doubt if it will have any lasting consequences. Sad, but true.
Hope springs eternal! :)
I have been noting sporadic coverage by liberal outlets, who at this point call it "old news" or "disinformation." But at some point they're going to have to eat their pride and admit something was amiss.
-
That which is spoken in the darkness will be shouted from the rooftops
No need to fret because if evildoers
God’s got this
Thanks brother! It sounds like you're on the right side of this? :)
Didn't know that we were choosing "sides":
Praying that God would have mercy on all of us, individually and nationally,
for our evil hearts and actions,
for our worship of political parties and political leaders,
for our reliance and faith on political solutions outside of God,
for our wringing of our hands in anxiety,
for our vilification of our "enemies" instead of our heartfelt and grateful prayers for their salvation,
for our idolatry in our worship of so-called media and journalism,
for the evil, vile, and ungodly things we say in our hearts and out of our blowholes about elected officials,
for our blood lust to finally "get even with them",
for our voyeuristic fascination with scandal, corruption, and the general sinful world in which we live,
for the desire for revenge,
all "in Jesus' name," of course, couched in the charade of "truth, justice, and the American way."
I am revolted and nauseated by the church in North America. Including the one I attend.
I think in rejecting your own church and the American Church you are taking sides. "Choose this day whom you will serve." And I'm not saying you're necessarily taking the wrong side--you are apparently just rejecting hypocritical Christianity?
On a negative day I sound just like you, and I do have a lot of negative days. And I do agree that the American Church largely has gone the way of compromise and lukewarmness. I just don't expect perfection out of Christianity overall--just reasonably embraced and practiced Christian standards.
But I won't apologize for my political views where they conform with biblical principles. I just have to remember that in all of my theology and arguments I have to stay true to God's voice in my conscience. Thanks for your prayer, otherwise.
-
A reason why msm has not begun voicing strongly against the Durham Report, is because they have not received the outline for a narrative against all the indictments. Why I say this... because the WH has not addressed this at all. But when they have an outline for a narrative, then the msm will be let loose while the WH gurgitates and regurgitates the narrative.
All we hear right now from the msm is that the report is "disinformation." Translation... they don't have anything to say against the truth, so they are waiting for words to gurgitate and regurgitate.
Once the gurgitation and regurgitation begins, in about a month someone savy in collecting news casts from the msm will put together a collage of vids where tons of anchors will be regurgitating the EXACT same words from the narrative script provided by their handlers.
Here is an example:
https://rumble.com/embed/v8lfer/?pub=4 (https://rumble.com/embed/v8lfer/?pub=4)
-
The MSM, Whitehouse, President, and whatever conspiratorial actors you have in mind are going to win because by the time anything is said, if anything is said, America will be well past the event in question. Kennedy's bay of pigs disaster? Oh hey, Marilyn though! Nixon had a war on cancer? Awesome. The Biden election was questionable? Good to know, we'll do better in the future.
Conglomerate owned media isn't good for society? Who could have guessed? So, where does the Christian's responsibility lie in all of this?
-
The MSM, Whitehouse, President, and whatever conspiratorial actors you have in mind are going to win because by the time anything is said, if anything is said, America will be well past the event in question. Kennedy's bay of pigs disaster? Oh hey, Marilyn though! Nixon had a war on cancer? Awesome. The Biden election was questionable? Good to know, we'll do better in the future.
Conglomerate owned media isn't good for society? Who could have guessed? So, where does the Christian's responsibility lie in all of this?
Romans 12 and 13
Jeremiah 29
Matthew 28
-
I have been noting sporadic coverage by liberal outlets, who at this point call it "old news" or "disinformation." But at some point they're going to have to eat their pride and admit something was amiss.
I rather doubt that.
-
Jeremiah 29
One of my favorites.
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”
Don't mourn overmuch. Be good, productive citizens. And when you reach out to Me, I will reach out to you.
For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.”
-
Jeremiah 29
One of my favorites.
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”
Don't mourn overmuch. Be good, productive citizens. And when you reach out to Me, I will reach out to you.
For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.”
But, but, but... ENEMIES! Wrong political people in Babylon! We're doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed.
One good thing about all this political and sociological unrest... One's faith becomes either self-evident or not...
-
One good thing about all this political and sociological unrest... One's faith becomes either self-evident or not...
Yeah all the worrying is quite the thing.
-
I have been noting sporadic coverage by liberal outlets, who at this point call it "old news" or "disinformation." But at some point they're going to have to eat their pride and admit something was amiss.
I rather doubt that.
Yea, certainly there will never be any full-on owning up to the wrongs done. That would appear to the Democratic Party to be political suicide. Repentance, in politics, is more like putting a spin on it and saying, "We're sorry you think we had bad motives when we tried to illegally beat you. Our political agenda always has the correct political matters in mind, and of course, our political solutions are best for the American people."
But recently, I've seen Democrat groups across the country beginning to question whether keeping Biden propped up, media-wise, is worth it. He appears to be a "sinking ship." As the mid-term elections approach, we're seeing changes in the staunch position held earlier, that we must "follow the science" in he Pandemic. All of a sudden, the virus is done, and we should "move on," even though current episodes are at about where they were when the mask mandates were first suggested.
That said, I do agree the pandemic seems to be winding down in its current phase, and I never have been for mask mandates. But this has never been solely about the public health, although I won't deny that it wasn't. More, it was about who held the steering wheel in our government, guiding the public on the best path. And as Biden became more like a "lost cause," the unified voice of Democrats began to change.
As we approach the congressional elections, the polarized political climate will not allow any Democrat "apologies." What we'll likely get are changes in political positions only because Democrat leaders are beating the virus, ending climate change, and bringing justice to the Ukrainians.
And any illegal election activities of the past will simply be given a sentence or two buried in the pages of the newspaper, or not reported on at all in the mainstream media. Hopefully, our judicial system will still have a say in that, and Durham will not be buried along with the anti-Trump rhetoric.
My hope is that the truth cannot be contained, that the internet will force reality upon all the networks and Democratic groups so that they either admit their wrongs or double down to the point where they are utterly broken at the polls.
-
But recently, I've seen Democrat groups across the country beginning to question whether keeping Biden propped up, media-wise, is worth it.
Yes, Democrats and even CNN appear to be turning on Biden. But they're turning on Biden, the man, not the far-left program. "Biden is old" or "Biden is ineffective" they say. But they aren't going to give up on their wishlist because that would mean admitting wrongness, which they won't do. Heck, they're dropping mask mandates in blue states- not because the mask mandate was wrong, but because "the science has changed".
Very clever, see.
-
Biden was always going to be the fall guy, the useful idiot, the US' electoral salvation from a Trumpian second term and that was all. Not even the memers are bothering with his Barackian bromance. But like Fenris was saying, this is in keeping with the ultimate aim.
The true horror for those in RandyPWN's shoes is the realisation that at the top there are no Democrats or Republicans. We mere humans at the bottom become fixated with invented political games in a world where the top truly is a Foucauldian abyss of endless power plays. Those in America celebrate their free elections because they have a dichotomy before them. Two is better than one, I suppose. One is just too obvious.
Or is that too cynical?
-
Or is that too cynical?
It's pretty cynical.
However, the fact that government only seems to grow in scope and power, regardless of who's in office, makes me wonder if you are correct on saying this.
-
But recently, I've seen Democrat groups across the country beginning to question whether keeping Biden propped up, media-wise, is worth it.
Yes, Democrats and even CNN appear to be turning on Biden. But they're turning on Biden, the man, not the far-left program. "Biden is old" or "Biden is ineffective" they say. But they aren't going to give up on their wishlist because that would mean admitting wrongness, which they won't do. Heck, they're dropping mask mandates in blue states- not because the mask mandate was wrong, but because "the science has changed".
Very clever, see.
I agree. At least control over the public in the name of "public health" seems to be softening. And they will then no longer get control for "beating the disease."
My hope is that even as Democrats relax their "mandates" the public will not soon forget that they represent a kind of tyranny that could erupt at any time, and favor only certain groups. Dividing the country into Black and White, student or non-student, Gay or Straight, Male of Female, will ultimately lead them to pick and choose who they want to spend our money on. That means the public generally will lose their trust in them.
Of course, the lust for power is never going to be resident in only one political party. The beauty of our system is that it has a pendulum that can swing one way or the other, as the public eventually figures out each respective "scam." ;)
-
Biden was always going to be the fall guy, the useful idiot, the US' electoral salvation from a Trumpian second term and that was all. Not even the memers are bothering with his Barackian bromance. But like Fenris was saying, this is in keeping with the ultimate aim.
Absolutely true. Nobody could've guessed Biden would even be nominated, a failure in his time! A guy who plagiarizes speeches, and is accused of always choosing wrong on an issue. Apparently it's come his time because the Left has assumed power now, and Biden can be the guy to lead that losing campaign?
Who would even select a guy who is losing his ability to speak and walk, who continues to scream every time someone challenges or disagrees with him, who mocks people and pretends to be compassionate? But if we dare mention that the Media biased the last elections we would be banned from public discourse. Yes, Biden could survive that kind of election.
The true horror for those in RandyPWN's shoes is the realisation that at the top there are no Democrats or Republicans. We mere humans at the bottom become fixated with invented political games in a world where the top truly is a Foucauldian abyss of endless power plays. Those in America celebrate their free elections because they have a dichotomy before them. Two is better than one, I suppose. One is just too obvious.
Or is that too cynical?
I used to say this back when I was in school--How much better are we than the Communists who get to choose for one candidate--we only get to choose from two (in reality)? By the time a politician climbs the ladder to the top, how much does he owe, and to whom? I got excited when a populist Presidential candidate, who was a billionaire, said he sought office only for his grandchildren and wanted to fight for the America he saw as disappearing. As long as people think like this, there is still hope.....maybe?
-
Hope in Jesus, yes
Hope in man? No
Hope in man’s political structures, no
Hope in the people of a nation? Only if they follow God’s plan revealed to Solomon at the dedication of the Temple
-
My hope is that even as Democrats relax their "mandates" the public will not soon forget that they represent a kind of tyranny that could erupt at any time, and favor only certain groups. Dividing the country into Black and White, student or non-student, Gay or Straight, Male of Female, will ultimately lead them to pick and choose who they want to spend our money on. That means the public generally will lose their trust in them.
One can certainly hope.
-
Hope in man? No
Hope in man’s political structures, no
Correct. And yet I still vote.
Also remember Mordechai's asking Esther to use her royal position to save the Jews "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)
Or the delicious twist at the end of the story "Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs attending the king, said: “There is a gallows fifty cubits high at Haman’s house. He had it built for Mordecai, who gave the report that saved the king.” “Hang him on it!” declared the king. So they hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai. (Esther 7:9-10)
So us humans do have our part to play.
-
Hope in Jesus, yes
Hope in man? No
Hope in man’s political structures, no
Hope in the people of a nation? Only if they follow God’s plan revealed to Solomon at the dedication of the Temple
I'm talking about being *hopeful*--not *put my faith in.*
I think you're completely right. Faith only in God and in His word--not in Man! I don't even trust myself to get my daily chores done! ;)
-
There's something to be said for the 'Uses of Pessimism and the Dangers of False Hope' (Scruton, 2010).
-
There's something to be said for the 'Uses of Pessimism and the Dangers of False Hope' (Scruton, 2010).
Both of which are properly processed through critical thinking to a positive effect. ;) Leave it to a conservative thinker to not become overly ideological.
-
There's something to be said for the 'Uses of Pessimism and the Dangers of False Hope' (Scruton, 2010).
There's a bitter joke about German Jews in the 1930s: The pessimists went into exile, and the optimists went into the gas chambers.
-
Leave it to a conservative thinker to not become overly ideological.
By definition, conservative thinkers are just as ideological as liberal thinkers.
-
Leave it to a conservative thinker to not become overly ideological.
By definition, conservative thinkers are just as ideological as liberal thinkers.
Depends on whose Dictionary you're reading. ;)
-
Leave it to a conservative thinker to not become overly ideological.
By definition, conservative thinkers are just as ideological as liberal thinkers.
Depends on whose Dictionary you're reading. ;)
The one we all read. The issue isn't ideology necessarily, but idealogues.
-
Leave it to a conservative thinker to not become overly ideological.
By definition, conservative thinkers are just as ideological as liberal thinkers.
Depends on whose Dictionary you're reading. ;)
Ah, the Humpty Dumpty Paradigm…
Popular in politics, So called Biblical exposition, and interpersonal communications everywhere today
-
Depends on whose Dictionary you're reading.
Nope. Conservatives see the world through a certain lens, and liberals see it through a different lens. Such a simple thing to say. You should try to see the world as another person sees it. Even if you think they're wrong.
-
Depends on whose Dictionary you're reading.
Nope. Conservatives see the world through a certain lens, and liberals see it through a different lens. Such a simple thing to say. You should try to see the world as another person sees it. Even if you think they're wrong.
I do see the world from how my detractors see it, or the way other viewpoints see it, or the way Progressives see it. I've been there and done that. In my youth I was very idealistic, as I think all young students are. They want to believe in Shangri-La.
And in case you've been dead to politics over the last few years, and I know you weren't, you would see how the Left and the Right take the same set of facts and spin them differently.
I really have the conviction that more conservative viewpoints tend towards a greater objectivity, whereas by definition progressives wish to nudge things along in a certain direction by manipulating the data. Obviously, there are also cases of manipulation on both sides--I wouldn't dispute that.
In the Age of Enlightenment, Diderot tried to build human knowledge with an objective, scientific mindset, which is where I believe progressive idealism got its start. We are still in that ideology today, even if it has taken on more modern forms.
And although I believe that Science is based upon empirically-provable realities, political philosophy is not easily based on "scientific experiments." The idealism of giving greater voice to the masses in the French Revolution resulted in Napoleon's dictatorship. By contrast, giving more liberty to more people in America resulted in less violence, unless you wish to include the Civil War. The revolutions of Communism has resulted in a massive number of deaths of the very people who were promised representation.
-
I really have the conviction that more conservative viewpoints tend towards a greater objectivity, whereas by definition progressives wish to nudge things along in a certain direction by manipulating the data. Obviously, there are also cases of manipulation on both sides--I wouldn't dispute that.
In the Age of Enlightenment, Diderot tried to build human knowledge with an objective, scientific mindset, which is where I believe progressive idealism got its start. We are still in that ideology today, even if it has taken on more modern forms.
And although I believe that Science is based upon empirically-provable realities, political philosophy is not easily based on "scientific experiments." The idealism of giving greater voice to the masses in the French Revolution resulted in Napoleon's dictatorship. By contrast, giving more liberty to more people in America resulted in less violence, unless you wish to include the Civil War. The revolutions of Communism has resulted in a massive number of deaths of the very people who were promised representation.
We've found some ideology. You a lefty?
-
I really have the conviction that more conservative viewpoints tend towards a greater objectivity, whereas by definition progressives wish to nudge things along in a certain direction by manipulating the data. Obviously, there are also cases of manipulation on both sides--I wouldn't dispute that.
In the Age of Enlightenment, Diderot tried to build human knowledge with an objective, scientific mindset, which is where I believe progressive idealism got its start. We are still in that ideology today, even if it has taken on more modern forms.
And although I believe that Science is based upon empirically-provable realities, political philosophy is not easily based on "scientific experiments." The idealism of giving greater voice to the masses in the French Revolution resulted in Napoleon's dictatorship. By contrast, giving more liberty to more people in America resulted in less violence, unless you wish to include the Civil War. The revolutions of Communism has resulted in a massive number of deaths of the very people who were promised representation.
We've found some ideology. You a lefty?
No, a conservative. ;)
-
I really have the conviction that more conservative viewpoints tend towards a greater objectivity, whereas by definition progressives wish to nudge things along in a certain direction by manipulating the data.
I used to think that too. Unfortunately the last few years have been an eye opener. The right has just as many crazies and loons and liars as the left does. Nobody wants to be objective anymore. It's all about being right and whatever lies one must tell- whether to themselves or to someone else- in order to prove their correctness.
-
Our nation is divided. We focus some much time and energy on our differences that there's little left to find common ground, or at least workable solutions.
But, like the saying goes, the left wing and right wing belong to the same bird.
I vote hoping for the best but with the knowledge that I can't turn to Washington for answers since it's filled with sinners like me.
Just praying that God would stir the hearts of His church to effectively change the hearts of this nations people.
-
Our nation is divided. We focus some much time and energy on our differences that there's little left to find common ground, or at least workable solutions.
But, like the saying goes, the left wing and right wing belong to the same bird.
I vote hoping for the best but with the knowledge that I can't turn to Washington for answers since it's filled with sinners like me.
Just praying that God would stir the hearts of His church to effectively change the hearts of this nations people.
I think there are still moderates in the Democrat Party, and yes I would consider them American friends and "brothers." However, the Democrat Party has become, in recent times, something different, and I'm not quite sure I can welcome them into the "American Family."
Perhaps I need to do that? I'm letting things play out for now.
-
I apologize if this isn't particularly relevant to biblical discussions. It is, however, relevant to my own participation in them. I've been completely immersed in the current unraveling of the Russian Hoax scandal in the US. Before and during the Trump presidency there was an active conspiracy, by the Democrat Party, and Hillary Clinton in particular, to skew the voters' attitude towards Trump as a traitor to US concerns, as a seedy "friend" of Putin and Russia.
This is now coming to light under a special prosecutor appointed just before Trump left office. Durham has uncovered a plot to spy on Trump--something Trump had identified earlier but was laughed at in the media. Trump was right--he was in fact spied on in a conspiracy to taint him and destroy his ability to be reelected. Our media has been busy castigating anybody who forwards this "conspiracy theory" as propagandistic and misinformation. In case you're interested, here are a few of my favorite people who appear on Fox TV, and another who someone on a forum gave me.
rumble.com/vux8jn-ep.-1705-spygate-erupts-the-dan-bongino-show.html?mref=16emn&mc=6kk5f&fbclid=IwAR0JwgrZTiGgY0yoQBT3k5M2g8ZFlShyrmn2JAvB-D28ayK_Pr0UhBQtwdY
www.facebook.com/JaySekulow/videos/1384622091989357
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=search&v=486042876411438&external_log_id=56883682-da75-4fc9-87f4-f4bac9725a51&q=steve%20hilton
www.facebook.com/bennyjohnson/videos/659895278545320
Trump was one of the, if not the, best presidents in our history in my opinion.
With all the slander that assailed Donald Trump even during the campaign, it was really no surprise when the Left doubled down once he was in office.
And to think before when he was a Democrat the Dem's of Congress who clearly hated his guts when he was president loved him when he was rich and giving their campaigns money. They considered him a traitor to the party when he became a Republican just to run against Hillary.
And we're to have forgotten that when she was Obama's SoS she was thick as thieves with Putin. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crimea-crisis-hillary-clinton-compares-russian-president-vladimir-putin-adolf-hitler-1438968
And don't forget that famous hot-mic capture that hit the media during BO's presidency. When he was whispering to Russia's Medvedev, saying he will have "more flexibility" after election. @ YouTube look for the video title:Obama tells Medvedev he will have "more flexibility" after election
That was telling in retrospect IMO. Obama was certain then he'd be re-elected for a second term. Now, in my view, I believe the one thing that came out of the 2020 steal was our coming to realize, we really don't vote the candidates in.
At least with what is happening now that Biden was put into office by the conspirators we know that it was always a lie that President Trump was Putin's man during Trump's term in office. Because if Trump was Putin's puppet as the Left alleged, wouldn't that have been the time to invade Ukraine?
I'd think so. Your puppet wouldn't do a thing to stop it. And by the by, what will sanctions do in this case? Nothing! Putin is a billionaire. He doesn't care about U.S. sanctions. Those are just saber rattling words to make people think Biden is a threat to Russia.
Biden couldn't spell Russia without someone whispering its spelling in his ear mic during a presser.
God help us.
As if Nancy Pelosi isn't evidence of that all these decades she's been in office.
-
However, the Democrat Party has become, in recent times, something different, and I'm not quite sure I can welcome them into the "American Family."
And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".
Maybe we should set up a panel to question these people. We could call it... I dunno, an "inquisition"?
And we can vet people for having the proper beliefs. Proper politics, sorry.
And we can expel those whose beliefs are heretical. UnAmerican, I mean. UnAmerican.
Because burning them at the stake seems too harsh. For now.
-
Trump was one of the, if not the, best presidents in our history in my opinion.
Oof. The man can't keep his foot out of his own mouth. I mean, he governed as a fairly mainstream Republican but he created so many distractions with his outlandish behavior that his presidency became about him and not the country.
With all the slander that assailed Donald Trump even during the campaign, it was really no surprise when the Left doubled down once he was in office.
snip
And we're to have forgotten that when she was Obama's SoS she was thick as thieves with Putin. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crimea-crisis-hillary-clinton-compares-russian-president-vladimir-putin-adolf-hitler-1438968
And don't forget that famous hot-mic capture that hit the media during BO's presidency. When he was whispering to Russia's Medvedev, saying he will have "more flexibility" after election. @ YouTube look for the video title:Obama tells Medvedev he will have "more flexibility" after election
And yet you're doubling down now that Obama is out of office.
Biden couldn't spell Russia without someone whispering its spelling in his ear mic during a presser.
Yeah, Trump would probably be better than Biden now. Probably. But who knows. Now he's giving interviews about what a "genius" Putin is. Because he always has to be the center of attention, which was the big failure of his presidency. And I say this as a lifelong Republican.
God help us.
Thankfully, He does.
-
I believe you know me enough when I say that to not do action against evil, is evil.
So, about this Ukraine situation... is Russia doing evil, and is NATO evil for not taking strong enough action against Russia?
-
However, the Democrat Party has become, in recent times, something different, and I'm not quite sure I can welcome them into the "American Family."
And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".
Maybe we should set up a panel to question these people. We could call it... I dunno, an "inquisition"?
And we can vet people for having the proper beliefs. Proper politics, sorry.
And we can expel those whose beliefs are heretical. UnAmerican, I mean. UnAmerican.
Because burning them at the stake seems too harsh. For now.
Yea, Fenris, unlike some I do have standards for American citizenship. I as an individual American do have my own convictions. And my conviction is that America should be more stringent in what it will allow in the name of "free speech."
I had this argument with Rob Strom, another Jew, for years. I argued that civil liberties should not be without black and white standards--otherwise the whole thing will blow up on itself.
Everybody knows you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater without causing a panic--therefore, there is no "right" to do so unless there is an honest to goodness "fire!"
If we allow the kind of hostility going on in our country right now politically, we won't survive as a nation, or as America. We will become a one-party state, wthout real civil liberties.
We will only have as much freedom as social media will allow us to have. And our best intentions will be misrepresented on the other media.
No I think that ought to be put out to pasture. But no, I won't crucify you for having another opinion. That's not propaganda, and that's not manipulation and deception. But it is in fact true-blue American.
-
Free speech doesn't exist for the sake of comfortable conversation.
-
I believe you know me enough when I say that to not do action against evil, is evil.
So, about this Ukraine situation... is Russia doing evil, and is NATO evil for not taking strong enough action against Russia?
The biblical position is to correct a problem if it is *within your sphere of responsibility* to deal with it, to avert a problem. For example...
Deut 22.4 If you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its feet.
We are forbidden from making alliances with evil nations or evil governments. But in the matter of a nation in distress, I think something should be done about it, if circumstances make us the available help. My hope is that NATO and the world does something about it.
As in all matters, we should pray and be sure that whatever we do is indeed God's will. But someone crying out for help sure seems like God speaking to us? May the Lord help us know what to do!
-
Free speech doesn't exist for the sake of comfortable conversation.
Are you comfortable with my speech? Of course not. That's American.
I'm just saying that when the identity of "America" begins to change, due to the "free speech" of the progressives, please note that their "free speech" is not really the kind we normally call "American."
Don't get me wrong. I want them to be able to voice their opinions, and enter into conversations about systems that they think will work best for us all.
But Communism did this, and look what it led to. Representing ideas to the people led to an enslavement of the people to a single ideology, which is the opposite of our American sense of "free speech."
Lately, the Progressives control a propaganda machine that seeks to turn our 2 party democracy into a 1 party system requiring society to conform to a single ideology. That isn't "free speech" to me!
It's of course possible that I'm exaggerating things a bit. But I'm genuinely concerned--that's all.
-
Free speech doesn't exist for the sake of comfortable conversation.
Are you comfortable with my speech? Of course not. That's American.
I'm just saying that when the identity of "America" begins to change, due to the "free speech" of the progressives, please note that their "free speech" is not really the kind we normally call "American."
Don't get me wrong. I want them to be able to voice their opinions, and enter into conversations about systems that they think will work best for us all.
But Communism did this, and look what it led to. Representing ideas to the people led to an enslavement of the people to a single ideology, which is the opposite of our American sense of "free speech."
Lately, the Progressives control a propaganda machine that seeks to turn our 2 party democracy into a 1 party system requiring society to conform to a single ideology. That isn't "free speech" to me!
It's of course possible that I'm exaggerating things a bit. But I'm genuinely concerned--that's all.
I'm saying that you aren't a proponent of free speech in the same way that those you're detracting aren't proponents of free speech. According to others, your 'free speech' is violent, offensive and all kinds of *phobic and whatever-normative, etc. etc. Accoprding to you, their kind of free speech isn't 'American' enough, and too Communist, and propagandist. Same coin, two sides.
So yes, place limitations on free speech to protect the identity of America. But that's not really American either, is it? Might be better to discuss and defeat those ideas in the public sphere, or accept that the world today isn't the world of 50 years ago.
I don't find your speech uncomfortable, by the way.
-
I believe you know me enough when I say that to not do action against evil, is evil.
So, about this Ukraine situation... is Russia doing evil, and is NATO evil for not taking strong enough action against Russia?
The biblical position is to correct a problem if it is *within your sphere of responsibility* to deal with it, to avert a problem. For example...
Deut 22.4 If you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its feet.
We are forbidden from making alliances with evil nations or evil governments. But in the matter of a nation in distress, I think something should be done about it, if circumstances make us the available help. My hope is that NATO and the world does something about it.
As in all matters, we should pray and be sure that whatever we do is indeed God's will. But someone crying out for help sure seems like God speaking to us? May the Lord help us know what to do!
I see, so there are necessary qualifications.
-
I believe you know me enough when I say that to not do action against evil, is evil.
So, about this Ukraine situation... is Russia doing evil, and is NATO evil for not taking strong enough action against Russia?
The biblical position is to correct a problem if it is *within your sphere of responsibility* to deal with it, to avert a problem. For example...
Deut 22.4 If you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its feet.
We are forbidden from making alliances with evil nations or evil governments. But in the matter of a nation in distress, I think something should be done about it, if circumstances make us the available help. My hope is that NATO and the world does something about it.
As in all matters, we should pray and be sure that whatever we do is indeed God's will. But someone crying out for help sure seems like God speaking to us? May the Lord help us know what to do!
I see, so there are necessary qualifications.
You were asking someone else. This was my qualification, that we are available to help, and someone needs help. Then we have to be sure God is pleased with it. His qualifications has to do with holiness and compassion both. Things are not always so clear.
-
I believe you know me enough when I say that to not do action against evil, is evil.
So, about this Ukraine situation... is Russia doing evil, and is NATO evil for not taking strong enough action against Russia?
The biblical position is to correct a problem if it is *within your sphere of responsibility* to deal with it, to avert a problem. For example...
Deut 22.4 If you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its feet.
We are forbidden from making alliances with evil nations or evil governments. But in the matter of a nation in distress, I think something should be done about it, if circumstances make us the available help. My hope is that NATO and the world does something about it.
As in all matters, we should pray and be sure that whatever we do is indeed God's will. But someone crying out for help sure seems like God speaking to us? May the Lord help us know what to do!
I see, so there are necessary qualifications.
You were asking someone else. This was my qualification, that we are available to help, and someone needs help. Then we have to be sure God is pleased with it. His qualifications has to do with holiness and compassion both. Things are not always so clear.
Yes, you would qualify the axiom, and that's fine.
-
I believe you know me enough when I say that to not do action against evil, is evil.
So, about this Ukraine situation... is Russia doing evil, and is NATO evil for not taking strong enough action against Russia?
A tough one for sure. Violence is not evil nor good. Violence can be for evil intent as well as for good intent. So, once the "true" purpose of the military operation is clear, intent can be discerned and then, one can say Russia is doing evil or good.
-
Everybody knows you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater without causing a panic--therefore, there is no "right" to do so unless there is an honest to goodness "fire!"
Actually, you can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Look it up.
If we allow the kind of hostility going on in our country right now politically, we won't survive as a nation, or as America. We will become a one-party state, wthout real civil liberties.
If we stifle free speech we won't be America anymore.
-
Free speech doesn't exist for the sake of comfortable conversation.
Exactly. The whole concept of free speech specifically exists to protect speech that one finds uncomfortable. Or that one disagrees with. If we restrict speech to things that the majority agrees with, well, that's trivial.
-
So, once the "true" purpose of the military operation is clear, intent can be discerned and then, one can say Russia is doing evil or good.
Russia is doing evil. End of story.
-
Putin now putting his nuclear forces on alert. The stated reason is "aggression from the west". He's talking about harsh words and economic sanctions I guess. Yeah, he's evil.
-
Everybody knows you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater without causing a panic--therefore, there is no "right" to do so unless there is an honest to goodness "fire!"
Actually, you can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Look it up.
If we allow the kind of hostility going on in our country right now politically, we won't survive as a nation, or as America. We will become a one-party state, wthout real civil liberties.
If we stifle free speech we won't be America anymore.
I'm not interested in getting technical. The point is, there are limits to so-called "free speech."
I do believe in "free speech" in the true sense of that word, as expressing honest views, politically, religious, etc. I'm just saying that if a political system is to survive, the antithesis cannot be allowed--kind of like putting matter and anti-matter together.
You can't have freedom and allow, at the same time, speech that is seditious, leading to the opposite of freedom.
I'm harmless, friend. I wouldn't advocate for anybody to go to jail for being Jewish. ;) But if you want to put me in jail for being a Christian, now then I must want to censure your speech. ;)
-
Putin now putting his nuclear forces on alert. The stated reason is "aggression from the west". He's talking about harsh words and economic sanctions I guess. Yeah, he's evil.
Putin has lost it https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html
This was an article published on the 26th, then taken down. It talks about Putin's victory in Ukraine in answering the 'Question of Ukraine' towards the restoration of the USSR and undoing of the mistakes in 1991.
-
I'm not interested in getting technical. The point is, there are limits to so-called "free speech."
I do believe in "free speech" in the true sense of that word, as expressing honest views, politically, religious, etc. I'm just saying that if a political system is to survive, the antithesis cannot be allowed--kind of like putting matter and anti-matter together.
You can't have freedom and allow, at the same time, speech that is seditious, leading to the opposite of freedom.
I'm harmless, friend. I wouldn't advocate for anybody to go to jail for being Jewish. ;) But if you want to put me in jail for being a Christian, now then I must want to censure your speech. ;)
The antithesis has to be allowed because that's what allows us to explore the world, form ideas, come to a particular view, reject this in favour of that. Free speech isn't just allowing someone to talk freely. Free speech lays at the foundation of an entire mechanism that makes the modern West possible. Free speech is a paradox in that it must allow for speech that would itself eliminate free speech.
Do you know who else allows speech except for the seditious kind? Russia, North Korea, China, Venezuela...
-
Free speech must be absolute or else it is not free
Free speech has limits on in terms of direct— not indirect- harm to others
Governments should never be given the power to limit any speech
-
Truth is treason in an empire of lies. - George Orwell
I don't trust any government or politician to police speech.
Free speech is foundational to the American way of governance.
I vehemently disagree with limiting anyone's speech. I would not limit someone's speech that they would like to limit free speech. That 's the beauty of allowing the speech to happen. The sharing of ideas can sharpen viewpoints allowing citizens to have the opportunity to have a voice beyond just voting.
-
And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".
No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.
Maybe we should set up a panel to question these people. We could call it... I dunno, an "inquisition"?
Absurd. When a person reveals themselves to be a global citizen, simply treat them that way. A global citizen should not be allowed to vote or hold office, for instance.
-
No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.
That's a roundabout way of agreeing with Fenris.
-
Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
-
And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".
No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.
Maybe we should set up a panel to question these people. We could call it... I dunno, an "inquisition"?
Absurd. When a person reveals themselves to be a global citizen, simply treat them that way. A global citizen should not be allowed to vote or hold office, for instance.
So, by what legal authority does one revoke a natural born citizen's citizenship?
Who gets to decide the definition of a "global citizen"?
-
Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Why in scare quotes?
-
Why in scare quotes?
Well, since this is the first response, I'll lay it out. I was "making" a "point" in how free speech becomes offensive at the worse or "questionable" in the least while simply speaking to others.
You questioned, I'm answering.
During actual verbal communication, not this written style of medium, I would have "spoken louder" before showing that vid to anyone I was speaking with. Possibly a large group even and should a person have asked, "why speak louder when you mention free speech?" I would have pointed out the above.
Tell me, if I had done this instead:
Here is an example of free speech, whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Would my post be "less" scary???
Or, what if I did this:
Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Or even more scary... "FREE SPEECH,"
Ok, all that rhetorical stuff aside... can I ask a question?
How and/or why does adding quotes, make a point... scary?
-
In my experience, which may or may not be flawed, putting words in quotation marks that are not actual quotes, but are instead used to isolate or emphasize certain words, is often used to suggest that the words inside the quotes are not really used for the plain and unambiguous reading of the words, but instead, are being used to suggest that the words inside the quotes have some hidden or secret or not obvious meaning.
Free speech is just free speech, regardless of who is using the term. When seen on screen as "free speech," the suggestion is that the speech is either not speech or isn't free.
Just how I have seen quotations used for emphasis and often for disambiguation.
-
In my experience, which may or may not be flawed, putting words in quotation marks that are not actual quotes, but are instead used to isolate or emphasize certain words, is often used to suggest that the words inside the quotes are not really used for the plain and unambiguous reading of the words, but instead, are being used to suggest that the words inside the quotes have some hidden or secret or not obvious meaning.
Free speech is just free speech, regardless of who is using the term. When seen on screen as "free speech," the suggestion is that the speech is either not speech or isn't free.
Just how I have seen quotations used for emphasis and often for disambiguation.
I had to lookup the word, "disambiguation," because I had no clue what it meant. If I understand the meaning of the word, my quotes were exactly for the purpose of disambiguation.
-
Why in scare quotes?
Well, since this is the first response, I'll lay it out. I was "making" a "point" in how free speech becomes offensive at the worse or "questionable" in the least while simply speaking to others.
You questioned, I'm answering.
During actual verbal communication, not this written style of medium, I would have "spoken louder" before showing that vid to anyone I was speaking with. Possibly a large group even and should a person have asked, "why speak louder when you mention free speech?" I would have pointed out the above.
Tell me, if I had done this instead:
Here is an example of free speech, whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Would my post be "less" scary???
Or, what if I did this:
Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Or even more scary... "FREE SPEECH,"
Ok, all that rhetorical stuff aside... can I ask a question?
How and/or why does adding quotes, make a point... scary?
Mhmm. As RK wrote, writing "free speech" with the quotes - scare quotes - suggested that you thought the speech in question was something other than free speech. That's the convention, anyway. The quotes aren't literally scary, nor the word inside them.
See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare%20quotes
And okay, the video is an example of free speech, so...?
-
I'm not interested in getting technical. The point is, there are limits to so-called "free speech."
I do believe in "free speech" in the true sense of that word, as expressing honest views, politically, religious, etc. I'm just saying that if a political system is to survive, the antithesis cannot be allowed--kind of like putting matter and anti-matter together.
You can't have freedom and allow, at the same time, speech that is seditious, leading to the opposite of freedom.
I'm harmless, friend. I wouldn't advocate for anybody to go to jail for being Jewish. ;) But if you want to put me in jail for being a Christian, now then I must want to censure your speech. ;)
The antithesis has to be allowed because that's what allows us to explore the world, form ideas, come to a particular view, reject this in favour of that. Free speech isn't just allowing someone to talk freely. Free speech lays at the foundation of an entire mechanism that makes the modern West possible. Free speech is a paradox in that it must allow for speech that would itself eliminate free speech.
Do you know who else allows speech except for the seditious kind? Russia, North Korea, China, Venezuela...
There is a difference between discussing ideas and actually plotting seditious acts with your *speech.* That's the kind of *speech* that is normally given legal scrutiny. Perhaps you wish a plot to actually be hatched before discriminating against that "speech?"
But I've had this argument before, and I at that time said I was opposed to "free speech" like holding homosexual parades down Main Ave, replete with nudity, near public schools or near churches. Draw your own limits, though you may not want to call this "free speech" at all?
-
Why in scare quotes?
Well, since this is the first response, I'll lay it out. I was "making" a "point" in how free speech becomes offensive at the worse or "questionable" in the least while simply speaking to others.
You questioned, I'm answering.
During actual verbal communication, not this written style of medium, I would have "spoken louder" before showing that vid to anyone I was speaking with. Possibly a large group even and should a person have asked, "why speak louder when you mention free speech?" I would have pointed out the above.
Tell me, if I had done this instead:
Here is an example of free speech, whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Would my post be "less" scary???
Or, what if I did this:
Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Or even more scary... "FREE SPEECH,"
Ok, all that rhetorical stuff aside... can I ask a question?
How and/or why does adding quotes, make a point... scary?
Mhmm. As RK wrote, writing "free speech" with the quotes - scare quotes - suggested that you thought the speech in question was something other than free speech. That's the convention, anyway. The quotes aren't literally scary, nor the word inside them.
See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare%20quotes
And okay, the video is an example of free speech, so...?
I forget that not all on this board know me enough to know where I stand in support of the Constitution. So, I understand that a use of "" can be misconstrued.
The video is an example of free speech presenting a perspective/opinion. I've watched several vids now where Ukrainian's are expressing how they wondered why it took this long for Russia to do military actions inside of Ukraine in effort to prevent the possibility of greater threat to it's borders.
Now, lets not continue with the misconstrue game, I'm not in support of Russia but due to my experience, understand this opinion presented in the vid I posted.
In 1962 (not to change the context but use this context), had Russia maintained firm and kept nukes in Cuba, would America commit to military actions in Cuba to rid the threat? I don't know... but how would such an action be viewed in relation to the intent of protection of America?
Now I know, there are no nukes in Ukraine aimed at Russia.
-
Free speech must be absolute or else it is not free
Free speech has limits on in terms of direct— not indirect- harm to others
Governments should never be given the power to limit any speech
I understand. There is a difference between suggesting maybe we should overthrow the govt. and actually plotting to do that. I think that's what you mean? And to some degree, I would agree.
My own philosophy of law and free speech stems from my belief in fundamentals inherent in God's word. I understand that different religions view "God's word" differently or not at all. But I'm speaking from the position of my own "faith."
I understand that liberal philosophy originates from former Christian societies that have had to deal with the infestation of paganism, and as a practical matter, societies must form their own ideals based on the constituent groups within them.
If we strictly take God's Law as the ideal and apply it in a society that is predominantly of faith, then there is no problem basing the limitations of speech on that which protects a religious society. Laws would censure only speech as it becomes a practical matter of preventing social chaos. Determining what kind of "speech" is actually doing that would be the job of responsible leadership--not the mob.
If, however, the society, for whatever reason, has many different groups, and no predominant belief system is in place, then laws governing free speech must be designed to protect those whose speech is, according to my faith, good and yet out of the mainstream, as well as those whose speech is well within the bounds of what protects peace among the various groups.
In other words, this is a practical matter of the limits to which a society should go in censuring speech that is activist. And it all turns on what the predominant "faith" of the society is. If it is Jewish or Christian, then a vast majority may indeed proscribe speech that threatens the social order.
I know some wish to place no limits at all on speech. But as a practical matter, speech can create riots. At some point, speech does need to be censured, in my opinion. Maybe we're defining "free speech" differently, though?
-
There is a difference between discussing ideas and actually plotting seditious acts with your *speech.* That's the kind of *speech* that is normally given legal scrutiny. Perhaps you wish a plot to actually be hatched before discriminating against that "speech?"
I'm talking about speech, and I would allow seditious speech. If you're talking about act, then that's something different. Planning is an act, to be clear.
But I've had this argument before, and I at that time said I was opposed to "free speech" like holding homosexual parades down Main Ave, replete with nudity, near public schools or near churches. Draw your own limits, though you may not want to call this "free speech" at all?
Again, you seem to be talking about act, not speech. There are other laws on the table - in my fictional, not Christian govermented country - regarding public nudity that would be appealed to prevent 'homosexual parades' from putting on a display in front of a public school or the prudes staring out a church window.
I'd also allow drinking in public.
-
Why in scare quotes?
Well, since this is the first response, I'll lay it out. I was "making" a "point" in how free speech becomes offensive at the worse or "questionable" in the least while simply speaking to others.
You questioned, I'm answering.
During actual verbal communication, not this written style of medium, I would have "spoken louder" before showing that vid to anyone I was speaking with. Possibly a large group even and should a person have asked, "why speak louder when you mention free speech?" I would have pointed out the above.
Tell me, if I had done this instead:
Here is an example of free speech, whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Would my post be "less" scary???
Or, what if I did this:
Here is an example of "free speech," whether wrong or right. A perspective/opinion, as expressed by a Romanian.
Or even more scary... "FREE SPEECH,"
Ok, all that rhetorical stuff aside... can I ask a question?
How and/or why does adding quotes, make a point... scary?
Mhmm. As RK wrote, writing "free speech" with the quotes - scare quotes - suggested that you thought the speech in question was something other than free speech. That's the convention, anyway. The quotes aren't literally scary, nor the word inside them.
See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare%20quotes
And okay, the video is an example of free speech, so...?
I forget that not all on this board know me enough to know where I stand in support of the Constitution. So, I understand that a use of "" can be misconstrued.
The video is an example of free speech presenting a perspective/opinion. I've watched several vids now where Ukrainian's are expressing how they wondered why it took this long for Russia to do military actions inside of Ukraine in effort to prevent the possibility of greater threat to it's borders.
Now, lets not continue with the misconstrue game, I'm not in support of Russia but due to my experience, understand this opinion presented in the vid I posted.
In 1962 (not to change the context but use this context), had Russia maintained firm and kept nukes in Cuba, would America commit to military actions in Cuba to rid the threat? I don't know... but how would such an action be viewed in relation to the intent of protection of America?
Now I know, there are no nukes in Ukraine aimed at Russia.
Where was it suggested that you supported Russia?
-
There is a difference between discussing ideas and actually plotting seditious acts with your *speech.* That's the kind of *speech* that is normally given legal scrutiny. Perhaps you wish a plot to actually be hatched before discriminating against that "speech?"
I'm talking about speech, and I would allow seditious speech. If you're talking about act, then that's something different. Planning is an act, to be clear.
But I've had this argument before, and I at that time said I was opposed to "free speech" like holding homosexual parades down Main Ave, replete with nudity, near public schools or near churches. Draw your own limits, though you may not want to call this "free speech" at all?
Again, you seem to be talking about act, not speech. There are other laws on the table - in my fictional, not Christian govermented country - regarding public nudity that would be appealed to prevent 'homosexual parades' from putting on a display in front of a public school or the prudes staring out a church window.
I'd also allow drinking in public.
As long as drinking is allowed in Heaven, I would certainly allow it! ;)
But yes, I'm talking about a specific kind of speech that would be the antithesis to a stable theocracy or to a stable democracy. The fine line between harmless speech and speech that is a form of activism is something that needs to be explored, in my judgment.
Ask the Progressives. They certainly realize that certain speech on social media is a threat to their idea of a stable democracy. At some point, civil disobedience becomes to them an act of sedition.
Now don't think I'm a Progressive, or agree with their kind of philosophy. My point is they realize that to opt for a specific kind of society, speech can indeed be a threat to that society and to its peace.
In a predominantly Christian society, certain forms of speech should be banned, including the promotion of pagan systems. The Law of Moses certainly banned that kind of speech upon threat of death.
But I do realize that most societies today do not enjoy a large Christian majority, indicating the need for more liberal laws on behalf of people who simply don't know better and are not deliberately advocating for the overthrow of God's Kingdom.
In other words, our laws, from a Christian perspective, should be based on realities, and not on ideals that do not presently exist. I can't improve on God's Law, and so I always begin there and work down to what is practical.
F. Schaeffer made a big point of placing the Law of God *before* the Law of the King. I'd have to agree with him.
-
Where was it suggested that you supported Russia?
Hasn't happened and I just don't want anyone going there akin to a perception I made scary words because of a pair of "".
-
I'm not interested in getting technical. The point is, there are limits to so-called "free speech."
Very narrow limits. So called "hate speech" is protected. Religious blasphemy is protected. Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater is protected. Speaking out against the government and ruling party is protected.
I do believe in "free speech" in the true sense of that word, as expressing honest views, politically, religious, etc. I'm just saying that if a political system is to survive, the antithesis cannot be allowed--kind of like putting matter and anti-matter together.
Why can't it survive? Because you, personally, don't think it can? That's not a reason.
I'm harmless, friend. I wouldn't advocate for anybody to go to jail for being Jewish. ;) But if you want to put me in jail for being a Christian, now then I must want to censure your speech. ;)
I don't want to put anyone in jail for anything they say. Why are you trying to paint yourself as a martyr?
-
And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".
No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.
So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for.
Absurd. When a person reveals themselves to be a global citizen, simply treat them that way. A global citizen should not be allowed to vote or hold office, for instance.
Lemme check the Constitution. Flip flip. Yeah, don't exclude "global citizens" from holding office or voting. Sorry.
-
If we strictly take God's Law as the ideal and apply it in a society that is predominantly of faith, then there is no problem basing the limitations of speech on that which protects a religious society.
Now you see, here's the problem with this. Take "God's law" how? Your own personal beliefs? Because billions of people consider themselves "Christian" yet don't all agree on some very basic fundamental concepts, let alone how to apply the bible. So what you mean is that you want your own, personal understanding of the bible to used as a guide for passing civil and criminal laws in a nation of 300 million people.
Let alone that government's role in a western society is not to protect religion. Maybe in a country that practices Sharia, sure. I think it's kind of a big deal for the Taliban.
-
Now don't think I'm a Progressive, or agree with their kind of philosophy.
You're quite the authoritarian though.
In a predominantly Christian society, certain forms of speech should be banned, including the promotion of pagan systems. The Law of Moses certainly banned that kind of speech upon threat of death.
Who gets to define "pagan"? In the middle ages the Catholic Church had a field day with this one.
-
And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".
No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.
So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for.
Absurd. When a person reveals themselves to be a global citizen, simply treat them that way. A global citizen should not be allowed to vote or hold office, for instance.
Lemme check the Constitution. Flip flip. Yeah, don't exclude "global citizens" from holding office or voting. Sorry.
You are personalizing your argument, seemingly to put words in my mouth. Did I talk about opinions that differed from mine? I don't think I did. Did I make myself or my opinions the measure of "Americanism" or "accepted thought?" I don't think I did.
Perhaps you are unaware of the crisis we face in the United States today with regard to citizenship, specifically the attack on the very concept of citizen. Those who want to destroy our country, i.e. traitors, are working with all diligence to destroy the concept of citizen in favor of "resident". Global citizens have no loyalty to any particular country; they have no need of borders; they vote for initiatives and candidates which favor the cosmocracy. Such people are against nationalism and certainly don't put America first.
This effort is manifest in various ways such as open borders, non-citizen voter, welfare payments to non-citizens, H-2B non-agricultural visas, The Dream Act, changes to birthright citizenship.
Yes, I believe that anyone who is working to destroy the nation should not be allowed to vote or hold office. And I believe you WILL find that in the constitution.
-
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think seditious speech is protected. I think it is a federal crime to incite others to overthrow the government.
-
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think seditious speech is protected. I think it is a federal crime to incite others to overthrow the government.
It's criminal in most places, but also unenforceable unless organisation is involved, and then, it's not quite the speech that attracted attention. If you were Russian, would you incite others to overthrow the government with you in the present circumstance?
-
You are personalizing your argument, seemingly to put words in my mouth. Did I talk about opinions that differed from mine? I don't think I did. Did I make myself or my opinions the measure of "Americanism" or "accepted thought?" I don't think I did.
You did, here I'll explain.
You replied to Fenris, who was originally replying to RandyPNW's statement:
However, the Democrat Party has become, in recent times, something different, and I'm not quite sure I can welcome them into the "American Family."
Fenris of course said:
And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".
RandyPNW agrees with this assessment in post #51 (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=238.msg4410#msg4410). In short, a political opinion can indeed disqualify one from being considered American, and such a person would indeed be "American" (i.e. nominally, in name only).
You then agree with RandyPNW some replies later with the following, although you do go a step further in identifying those with a particular political opinion as traitors and not American:
No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.
Fenris then takes issue with this:
So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for.
And that leads us back to the reply you most recently wrote, which is the one I'm responding to. It's an odd reply, admittedly. Fenris isn't "personalising" his argument, or putting words into your mouth. What else are we supposed to read from this exchange:
"And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans"."
"No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country"
"So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for."
I'd say Fenris read from that exchange what any reasonable person would have read from it. In a bizarre move, you double down on the thing you supposedly didn't say vis-a-vis the crisis in America regarding citizenship and those who attack the very concept of citizen. Presumably, they hold different opinions about the concept than you do. And the same for their views on borders and nationalism and such. You are indeed suggesting that such people are a threat to the nation, are you not?
Bizarre.
-
History is repeating itself...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-s-kharkiv-attacks-are-war-crimes-zelensky/ar-AAUttsv?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
A nearby memorial to victims of the Holocaust was damaged in the same strike. The Babyn Yar ravine is Europe's largest mass grave of the Holocaust where between 70,000 and 100,000 people, mostly Jews, were shot by the Nazis.
Mr Zelensky said on Twitter that the attack was "history repeating...".
"What is the point of saying 'never again' for 80 years, if the world stays silent when a bomb drops on the same site of Babyn Yar?" he asked.
-
Well, make no mistake...
Short of a miracle, Ukraine will lose this war. Russia will continue to be aggressive, and the Western world will be self-congratulatory at all the unprecedented action it's taken -- never mind all the dead men, women and children. It will be yet another failing of the West, because Russia has nukes, and no one wants World War 3. Short of a miracle, of course. Let's hope pray for a miracle, because it's not going to get any better if it doesn't stop here.
-
You are personalizing your argument, seemingly to put words in my mouth. Did I talk about opinions that differed from mine? I don't think I did. Did I make myself or my opinions the measure of "Americanism" or "accepted thought?" I don't think I did.
Perhaps you are unaware of the crisis we face in the United States today with regard to citizenship, specifically the attack on the very concept of citizen. Those who want to destroy our country, i.e. traitors, are working with all diligence to destroy the concept of citizen in favor of "resident". Global citizens have no loyalty to any particular country; they have no need of borders; they vote for initiatives and candidates which favor the cosmocracy. Such people are against nationalism and certainly don't put America first.
And guess what? They have the right to those opinions under our system of government.
Yes, I believe that anyone who is working to destroy the nation should not be allowed to vote or hold office. And I believe you WILL find that in the constitution.
Do tell.
-
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think seditious speech is protected. I think it is a federal crime to incite others to overthrow the government.
People who advocate for open borders, citizenship for illegal immigrants, non citizen voting, (all things I happen to oppose, by the way) and so on are not advocating for an overthrow of the government. So I don't see how the "sedition" charge applies.
-
Sedition is an act, not a group of words
-
And, as it just so happens, I am a lawyer, although I did not stay at a holiday inn express last night.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Last SCOTUS case setting the standard for the edges of free speech. In essence, even seditious speech is protected unless the speech is such— almost always accompanied by action — such that the threat to governmental institutions is imminent
In other words, spoken from the main hatch of a tank on Pennsylvania Avenue saying “overtake the White House “ is probably not protected.
Saying it from the back if a Ford pickup in Kalamazoo probably is
Content restriction on free speech are almost always overturned as violative of the First Amendment
Private companies of course are free to prohibit any speech they like in the workplace during work times
-
Well, make no mistake...
Short of a miracle, Ukraine will lose this war. Russia will continue to be aggressive, and the Western world will be self-congratulatory at all the unprecedented action it's taken -- never mind all the dead men, women and children. It will be yet another failing of the West, because Russia has nukes, and no one wants World War 3. Short of a miracle, of course. Let's hope pray for a miracle, because it's not going to get any better if it doesn't stop here.
I agree with this. I am impressed by how the west has gotten together to sanction Russia though. Even usually neutral countries like Switzerland are on board. The ruble has lost 1/3 of its value and is now worth less than a penny. The Russian stock market has been closed the last two days to prevent a complete crash as investors flee. Private corporations like Intel, AMD, and Apple are stopping shipments. It's going to inflict the hurt on the Russian economy.
-
And, as it just so happens, I am a lawyer, although I did not stay at a holiday inn express last night.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Thanks for sharing your wisdom as always.
-
Well, make no mistake...
Short of a miracle, Ukraine will lose this war. Russia will continue to be aggressive, and the Western world will be self-congratulatory at all the unprecedented action it's taken -- never mind all the dead men, women and children. It will be yet another failing of the West, because Russia has nukes, and no one wants World War 3. Short of a miracle, of course. Let's hope pray for a miracle, because it's not going to get any better if it doesn't stop here.
Praying that the Russian people will finally put a stop to Putin.
But however it comes about, this has got to be his last stand.
Ultimately, he's toast.
-
I agree with this. I am impressed by how the west has gotten together to sanction Russia though. Even usually neutral countries like Switzerland are on board. The ruble has lost 1/3 of its value and is now worth less than a penny. The Russian stock market has been closed the last two days to prevent a complete crash as investors flee. Private corporations like Intel, AMD, and Apple are stopping shipments. It's going to inflict the hurt on the Russian economy.
Absolutely, and the stock market is set to stay closed until at least the 5th. But in the long-term, if Putin gets Ukraine what's it going to matter so long as he's sitting comfy? There are plenty of pariah countries, and hey, the height of the USSR was breadlines and dead Ukrainians, right? Looks like he's getting exactly what he wanted.
21st-century war is an entirely different beast, it seems. What happens to all the sanctions when Russia declares victory? Do we keep them? Are they now an act of economic aggression over a conflict that has since ended? Do we end them, and then, do Putin and his oligarchs get back what they once lost for a few days? Those sanctions don't seem to have stopped the use of GRAD systems, cluster munitions and vacuum bombs. Unprecedented and not enough is my concern. Everything short of boots on the ground, and it wasn't enough.
Let's hope those Russians get their act together and do to the leadership of their country what they've always done.
-
You are personalizing your argument, seemingly to put words in my mouth. Did I talk about opinions that differed from mine? I don't think I did. Did I make myself or my opinions the measure of "Americanism" or "accepted thought?" I don't think I did.
You did, here I'll explain.
You replied to Fenris, who was originally replying to RandyPNW's statement:
However, the Democrat Party has become, in recent times, something different, and I'm not quite sure I can welcome them into the "American Family."
Fenris of course said:
And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".
RandyPNW agrees with this assessment in post #51 (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=238.msg4410#msg4410). In short, a political opinion can indeed disqualify one from being considered American, and such a person would indeed be "American" (i.e. nominally, in name only).
You then agree with RandyPNW some replies later with the following, although you do go a step further in identifying those with a particular political opinion as traitors and not American:
No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.
Fenris then takes issue with this:
So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for.
And that leads us back to the reply you most recently wrote, which is the one I'm responding to. It's an odd reply, admittedly. Fenris isn't "personalising" his argument, or putting words into your mouth. What else are we supposed to read from this exchange:
"And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans"."
"No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country"
"So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for."
I'd say Fenris read from that exchange what any reasonable person would have read from it. In a bizarre move, you double down on the thing you supposedly didn't say vis-a-vis the crisis in America regarding citizenship and those who attack the very concept of citizen. Presumably, they hold different opinions about the concept than you do. And the same for their views on borders and nationalism and such. You are indeed suggesting that such people are a threat to the nation, are you not?
Bizarre.
You also don't seem to understand the mistake Fenris made and why it matters. The issue is NOT disagreement. Republican Americans and Democratic Americans disagree all the time and I have no problem with that. I never even suggested that disagreement was an issue. I never said that we should ban the speech with which we disagree.
Randy posited that the Democratic Party "has become . . . something different." How can anyone not have noticed that the Democratic party has been subverted by a cabal of treacherous people who are attempting to destroy America?
What is a country if not a group of people who all share the same assumptions and in our case, the bill of rights? What is a country if not a society of shared values, shared history, shared culture, and loyalty among citizens?
Whose speech is being censored today? And by whom?
Do you believe that people attempting to destroy American should hold office? I don't.
-
We have a political solution called the ballot box
-
We have a political solution called the ballot box
I'm not going to question whether Trump won or lost the last election. But I do question whether elections are truly fair. It is a fact people are easily manipulated. And the influences in our society, eg the Media, Hollywood, Sports, Education, and yes--political parties--do select what speech can be heard.
Cancel culture is on full display, so how valid is "the ballot box?" Does Congress represent a people drugged by some kind of propagandistic opiate?
And my whole point was about Seditious Speech becoming Activist Speech, leading to organized acts of sedition. Does anyone truly believe that BLM riots in cities across America were "peaceful protests," or acts of "free political speech?"
I think it was indeed an attempt to use free speech to challenge and to subvert conventional American philosophy, to use race as a method to change our Constitution. Opening the door to foreigners without a border wall is an example of changing our Constitution, I should think?
Of course changing our Constitution is itself legal and American. But at what point is the culture being changed? It may be legal, but I would argue that at some point it stops being American.
Legitimate free speech may lead to this, and I wouldn't argue against it as a matter of law. But I would argue against it based on my own religious and political beliefs.
Where something becomes against the law depends on our present state of our Constitution. But I was arguing from the point of view of my ideal Theocracy, the Kingdom of God.
The argument that different religious people have different views of God's Kingdom and that therefore speech must tolerate the majority view in a society itself is a form of "theocracy." It is an argument for the adoption of religious, cultural, and legal standards by a large majority in a country, and not for "free speech."
If we postulate that there is truth that must override a majority view of values for a society, then we're back to arguing for "theocracy." I may actively speak against the legalization of sodomy, but at some point the majority and the courts may decide that my speech is discriminatory, and I may be silenced or jailed.
-
We have a political solution called the ballot box
Not Yet. Hopefully soon.
-
You also don't seem to understand the mistake Fenris made and why it matters. The issue is NOT disagreement. Republican Americans and Democratic Americans disagree all the time and I have no problem with that. I never even suggested that disagreement was an issue. I never said that we should ban the speech with which we disagree.
Randy posited that the Democratic Party "has become . . . something different." How can anyone not have noticed that the Democratic party has been subverted by a cabal of treacherous people who are attempting to destroy America?
What is a country if not a group of people who all share the same assumptions and in our case, the bill of rights? What is a country if not a society of shared values, shared history, shared culture, and loyalty among citizens?
Whose speech is being censored today? And by whom?
Do you believe that people attempting to destroy American should hold office? I don't.
No, I'm not failing to comprehend the point you're making, and I suspect Fenris didn't either. As Fenris said: "People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans"." [sic] The politics are different, not merely or just the opinions of those who hold to this or that politic. The argument you're making is that yes indeed, disagreement can become such that it leads to a different politic that in your view, constitutes an attempt to destroy America.
So, you would ban people from holding office who express a sufficiently different politic from your own that you view it as dangerous to the identity of America. You would consider these people traitors, implying that their views, opinions, politic, etc., are so different so as to be un-American, perhaps. But then yes, the issue is disagreement, namely, how much disagreement can be tolerated before restrictions are applied? Fundamentally we have in view differences of opinion and value.
Now I'm not American, so you'll have to excuse me for failing to appreciate the importance of the sleight of hand that are the Democrat and Republican parties.
The authoritarians want to censor everyone's speech, whether on the right or the left. And that I know very well, for the postmodernist language gamers are 'my people', or so I've been told. Mond and I will have the world fixed in no time.
-
Absolutely, and the stock market is set to stay closed until at least the 5th. But in the long-term, if Putin gets Ukraine what's it going to matter so long as he's sitting comfy? There are plenty of pariah countries, and hey, the height of the USSR was breadlines and dead Ukrainians, right? Looks like he's getting exactly what he wanted.
Sigh. Yes. You are correct. And the Russian army appears to be making progress, however slowly. And so far as pariah countries go, Iran should be one. Yet it appears that we're going to put 100 billion dollars in their bank account and allow them to build nukes. And guess who's mediating between us and them? Russia.
-
You also don't seem to understand the mistake Fenris made and why it matters.
I haven't made any mistake. We have free speech in this country. Your desire to criminalize speech or political parties because you disagree with it or find it dangerous is not an American value. I don't see how destroying America protects America.
-
I may actively speak against the legalization of sodomy, but at some point the majority and the courts may decide that my speech is discriminatory, and I may be silenced or jailed.
I find this statement amusing. You're arguing for the criminalization of speech (in your ideal theocracy), while simultaneously expressing fear of your speech being criminalized.
So censorship is ok- so long as you're the one who decides what gets censored.
-
I may actively speak against the legalization of sodomy, but at some point the majority and the courts may decide that my speech is discriminatory, and I may be silenced or jailed.
I find this statement amusing. You're arguing for the criminalization of speech (in your ideal theocracy), while simultaneously expressing fear of your speech being criminalized.
So censorship is ok- so long as you're the one who decides what gets censored.
What I find amusing is that you, a Jew, are arguing for relative morality. Of course I believe that my idea of a Theocracy is right, and should enjoy protected speech, whether in a Christian Theocracy or in an atheistic Communist country!
But to be consistent, I would not, in my ideal Theocracy, tolerate things that my God says is evil and destructive in a Christian Society. As God said, if we do not keep His holy word, He will curse our society.
And so, yes, to be consistent, I would censor speech in my ideal society, allowing for the inevitability of human flaws. Grace should always be made available in areas where truth has been lost and people can no longer be held accountable. And grace should always be extended to the repentant.
-
What I find amusing is that you, a Jew, are arguing for relative morality.
He's not arguing for relative morality. He's pointing out the inconsistency of whining about the possibility of censorship (and cancel culture, as you have previously) alongside the acknowledgement that you would engage in this very censorship in your ideal theocratic state. If you're fine with not tolerating things "that my God says is evil and destructive" then you should have a bit of empathy for those in a similar position, and accept whatever censorship they place on you. After all, they're only trying to do what they think is best.
Besides, this doesn't even touch on the different understandings of what exactly it is that God finds "evil and destructive". You say one thing, but other Christians say other things, and I don't know about you, but I've personally had little luck with Christians who are overly concerned with being Conservative, or on the Right, or as imagining themselves as stalwart opponents of those on the Left. Many of the Christians I know would, and have indeed, been quite unkind to me. Why should anyone accept what you think, and not what another Christian thinks?
-
Absolutely, and the stock market is set to stay closed until at least the 5th. But in the long-term, if Putin gets Ukraine what's it going to matter so long as he's sitting comfy? There are plenty of pariah countries, and hey, the height of the USSR was breadlines and dead Ukrainians, right? Looks like he's getting exactly what he wanted.
Sigh. Yes. You are correct. And the Russian army appears to be making progress, however slowly. And so far as pariah countries go, Iran should be one. Yet it appears that we're going to put 100 billion dollars in their bank account and allow them to build nukes. And guess who's mediating between us and them? Russia.
That's one of the mistakes the West is making, I think. This idea that Russia's advance has been slow, so it's failing. How long did it take the US to take Baghdad? It's not like Putin is going to think to himself, "it's slow, well, better give up". We're hoping that's what sanctions will do, but I'm not convinced. The dude is threatening nuclear war and space station sabotage. Like, what?
I'm thinking there's enough corruption and planned incompetence in this push that it's clear the Russian army isn't what it could be. I'm almost convinced at this point that there are those in the Russian army sabotaging the effort, but it's only going to help for so long, and the push won't stop. Russia has been planning this for years, and I just wonder...
...is my peace of mind worth the cost of an annihilated Ukraine? I'm afraid that it might be, and Ukraine dies so the world can go on. But will it go on? Putin clearly isn't going to stop unless he's stopped. You ever wonder if there are Russians in the army who have thought to themselves, "If I were in Nazi Germany I wouldn't have followed Hitler?" I wonder what they're doing now.
-
What I find amusing is that you, a Jew, are arguing for relative morality.
As Athanasius has pointed out, I am not speaking about morality at all. I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical to complain about the fear of you being censored while at the same time calling for censorship of others with whom you disagree.
You have fear that free speech will lead to a country that is no longer America, and your solution is to ban free speech; you don't seem to understand that will lead to this country no longer being America.
-
Why should anyone accept what you think, and not what another Christian thinks?
And when religion and politics have been too intertwined, it has led to things like the Inquisition where the "correct" Christian thinking has been imposed on other Christians. By force.
Or if a modern day example is needed, think of the Taliban.
No theocracy is going to create a functioning state in the modern world. Certainly not in the west, where personal freedom is foundational. In the messianic era, when the world is united under God's rule, that's a different story.
-
...is my peace of mind worth the cost of an annihilated Ukraine? I'm afraid that it might be, and Ukraine dies so the world can go on.
This is a problem that all states suffer. Smaller states most of all. It is a sad truth.
-
So, you would ban people from holding office who express a sufficiently different politic from your own . . .
How can I get you to understand that I have not adopted a subjective standpoint? Whether someone disagrees with me or not isn't the issue.
Do you realize that elected officials, including the president, swear an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? The talk here concerns domestic enemies. Surely you can see that an elected domestic enemy suffers under a huge conflict of interest? Don't you? How foolish it would be if we allowed domestic enemies to hold office.
If you want to talk in terms of disagreement, then explain how a domestic enemy should have any say over domestic affairs? Just as you would not allow a foreign enemy to dictate foreign policy?
The talk is NOT about the quantity of disagreement. It's over the type of disagreement. I certainly would not allow debate over defunding the police. The fact that such debate is allowed is clear indication of mass hysteria. Anyone who would suggest such a thing is clearly an enemy of the people and should not be allowed to hold office.
Now I'm not American, so you'll have to excuse me for failing to appreciate the importance of the sleight of hand that are the Democrat and Republican parties.
The authoritarians want to censor everyone's speech, whether on the right or the left. And that I know very well, for the postmodernist language gamers are 'my people', or so I've been told. Mond and I will have the world fixed in no time.
I don't want to censor anyone's speech. But I would like to limit our elections to those who are citizens of this country AND clearly not an enemy infiltrator.
-
Do you realize that elected officials, including the president, swear an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? The talk here concerns domestic enemies. Surely you can see that an elected domestic enemy suffers under a huge conflict of interest? Don't you? How foolish it would be if we allowed domestic enemies to hold office.
By what standard are you calling someone a "domestic enemy"? What does someone have to do to earn this title?
The talk is NOT about the quantity of disagreement. It's over the type of disagreement. I certainly would not allow debate over defunding the police. The fact that such debate is allowed is clear indication of mass hysteria. Anyone who would suggest such a thing is clearly an enemy of the people and should not be allowed to hold office.
Of course people should be allowed to debate defunding the police. This is a free country, and if citizens or their elected official choose to cut police funding that is their right. Of course they will have to live with the consequences of a smaller police force, which is probably higher crime.
I don't want to censor anyone's speech. But I would like to limit our elections to those who are citizens of this country AND clearly not an enemy infiltrator.
Again, who gets to decide who is an "enemy infiltrator"? It sounds so I dunno, Soviet?
-
And when religion and politics have been too intertwined, it has led to things like the Inquisition where the "correct" Christian thinking has been imposed on other Christians. By force.
Or if a modern day example is needed, think of the Taliban.
No theocracy is going to create a functioning state in the modern world. Certainly not in the west, where personal freedom is foundational. In the messianic era, when the world is united under God's rule, that's a different story.
Yes, and as someone who many Christians are quite unloving towards, I'm probably hyper-aware of this fact. The Messianic era, the New Creation, whatever -- that's cool, that's when all will be well. But that's then and this is now.
-
By what standard are you calling someone a "domestic enemy"? What does someone have to do to earn this title?
Surely you know the answers to these questions.
Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent
Why is it that I have to explain everything?
Of course people should be allowed to debate defunding the police. This is a free country, and if citizens or their elected official choose to cut police funding that is their right. Of course they will have to live with the consequences of a smaller police force, which is probably higher crime.
Isaiah warned you about the evil shepherd. Isaiah warned you about a time when the nation would be ruled by women and children, i.e. people who lack wisdom.
Some unwise and inexperienced people got elected. They defunded the police. Crime skyrocketed.
But tell me this. Did we really need to debate the issue? Any adult with common sense would never have entertained such an idea let alone debate it.
Your philosophy doesn't work in the real world today. Back when the country was first founded, the nation was ruled by men who were well versed in the classics and the nation began to build libraries and public schools in order that the country would be led by wise individuals. Today, libraries are on life support; public schools are indoctrination camps; schools no longer teach the humanities. Churches and Synagogues are no match for those who drive world culture, especially when it comes to moral training. Who is listening to the wise?
The Lord is allowing stupid people to have a great influence on the public, causing confusion, fear, panic, uncertainty, distrust, and mass delusion. We are being led by fools, who not only lack experience but can't think critically or honestly about the real world.
So no, not today. I don't think we should allow stupid people to enter into the chambers of government in order to have an equal voice with the wise. No, I don't think teenage minded, bartenders, who lack life experience and are easily manipulated to serve in government.
You can say, "well, that's the choice of those who elected her." To that I say, "prove she was elected."
Again, who gets to decide who is an "enemy infiltrator"? It sounds so I dunno, Soviet?
Surely you know the answers to these questions.
Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent
-
Why should anyone accept what you think, and not what another Christian thinks?
And when religion and politics have been too intertwined, it has led to things like the Inquisition where the "correct" Christian thinking has been imposed on other Christians. By force.
Or if a modern day example is needed, think of the Taliban.
No theocracy is going to create a functioning state in the modern world. Certainly not in the west, where personal freedom is foundational. In the messianic era, when the world is united under God's rule, that's a different story.
What's different about it? I mean, what do you think will be different?
-
By what standard are you calling someone a "domestic enemy"? What does someone have to do to earn this title?
Surely you know the answers to these questions.
Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent
Why is it that I have to explain everything?
Of course people should be allowed to debate defunding the police. This is a free country, and if citizens or their elected official choose to cut police funding that is their right. Of course they will have to live with the consequences of a smaller police force, which is probably higher crime.
Isaiah warned you about the evil shepherd. Isaiah warned you about a time when the nation would be ruled by women and children, i.e. people who lack wisdom.
Some unwise and inexperienced people got elected. They defunded the police. Crime skyrocketed.
But tell me this. Did we really need to debate the issue? Any adult with common sense would never have entertained such an idea let alone debate it.
Your philosophy doesn't work in the real world today. Back when the country was first founded, the nation was ruled by men who were well versed in the classics and the nation began to build libraries and public schools in order that the country would be led by wise individuals. Today, libraries are on life support; public schools are indoctrination camps; schools no longer teach the humanities. Churches and Synagogues are no match for those who drive world culture, especially when it comes to moral training. Who is listening to the wise?
The Lord is allowing stupid people to have a great influence on the public, causing confusion, fear, panic, uncertainty, distrust, and mass delusion. We are being led by fools, who not only lack experience but can't think critically or honestly about the real world.
So no, not today. I don't think we should allow stupid people to enter into the chambers of government in order to have an equal voice with the wise. No, I don't think teenage minded, bartenders, who lack life experience and are easily manipulated to serve in government.
You can say, "well, that's the choice of those who elected her." To that I say, "prove she was elected."
Again, who gets to decide who is an "enemy infiltrator"? It sounds so I dunno, Soviet?
Surely you know the answers to these questions.
Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent
Who gets to pick the white hats and the black hats? By what power mechanism will you enforce those decisions? What is the consequence if those decisions are not to your liking?
-
What's different about it? I mean, what do you think will be different?
Answering for myself: renewed creation, humanity, etc. We won't think, act or behave sinfully. God is just and righteous. Big differences, no?
-
By what standard are you calling someone a "domestic enemy"? What does someone have to do to earn this title?
Surely you know the answers to these questions.
Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent
Why is it that I have to explain everything?
Of course people should be allowed to debate defunding the police. This is a free country, and if citizens or their elected official choose to cut police funding that is their right. Of course they will have to live with the consequences of a smaller police force, which is probably higher crime.
Isaiah warned you about the evil shepherd. Isaiah warned you about a time when the nation would be ruled by women and children, i.e. people who lack wisdom.
Some unwise and inexperienced people got elected. They defunded the police. Crime skyrocketed.
But tell me this. Did we really need to debate the issue? Any adult with common sense would never have entertained such an idea let alone debate it.
Your philosophy doesn't work in the real world today. Back when the country was first founded, the nation was ruled by men who were well versed in the classics and the nation began to build libraries and public schools in order that the country would be led by wise individuals. Today, libraries are on life support; public schools are indoctrination camps; schools no longer teach the humanities. Churches and Synagogues are no match for those who drive world culture, especially when it comes to moral training. Who is listening to the wise?
The Lord is allowing stupid people to have a great influence on the public, causing confusion, fear, panic, uncertainty, distrust, and mass delusion. We are being led by fools, who not only lack experience but can't think critically or honestly about the real world.
So no, not today. I don't think we should allow stupid people to enter into the chambers of government in order to have an equal voice with the wise. No, I don't think teenage minded, bartenders, who lack life experience and are easily manipulated to serve in government.
You can say, "well, that's the choice of those who elected her." To that I say, "prove she was elected."
Again, who gets to decide who is an "enemy infiltrator"? It sounds so I dunno, Soviet?
Surely you know the answers to these questions.
Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent
Who gets to pick the white hats and the black hats? By what power mechanism will you enforce those decisions? What is the consequence if those decisions are not to your liking?
Me, and I'll execute anyone who doesn't agree with me, along with any living relatives, and friends. And pets. I'm just skipping to the end, of course.
-
Yep.
-
History will make the assertion (already making it) that the evangelicals came out against the constitution and, ultimately, democracy itself.
-
Surely you know the answers to these questions.
No, I really don't. At least, not in the context that you're implying.
Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
This is really broad. I mean, technically people running for public office are enemies under this definition. But they're not enemies, they are political opponents. Using this definition, anyone running against your CadyandZoe (TM) approved candidate is an enemy of the country.
Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
What does "betray" mean? You seem to think that someone who has a different opinion on the size and role of government is somehow "betraying" the country.
Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent
But again, you're applying this to people who have different political views form you. Which is actually protected speech under the Bill of Rights.
Why is it that I have to explain everything?
Because you use words in an atypical meaning. "Enemy", "betrayal", etc.
Isaiah warned you about the evil shepherd. Isaiah warned you about a time when the nation would be ruled by women and children, i.e. people who lack wisdom.
Isaiah's warnings were for his generation i.e. ancient Israel. Not contemporary liberal democracies thousands of years after he lived.
Some unwise and inexperienced people got elected. They defunded the police. Crime skyrocketed.
But tell me this. Did we really need to debate the issue?
That's what people in democracies do. I spent two decades in law enforcement and thought it was a terrible idea. But that's life in a democracy- people discuss ideas and vote on them.
Your philosophy doesn't work in the real world today. Back when the country was first founded, the nation was ruled by men who were well versed in the classics and the nation began to build libraries and public schools in order that the country would be led by wise individuals. Today, libraries are on life support; public schools are indoctrination camps; schools no longer teach the humanities. Churches and Synagogues are no match for those who drive world culture, especially when it comes to moral training. Who is listening to the wise?
So in your ideal democracy only "smart people" get to vote? Because people don't study the classics they shouldn't have a say so in our country's future?
The Lord is allowing
Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.
So no, not today. I don't think we should allow stupid people to enter into the chambers of government in order to have an equal voice with the wise.
When you say "wise" what you really mean is "people who agree with me", right?
You can say, "well, that's the choice of those who elected her." To that I say, "prove she was elected."
We have a certain process that gets followed. Surely you know this?
-
What's different about it? I mean, what do you think will be different?
According to the prophets, there will be world peace and universal knowledge of God. Only a society united under God's rule can be run as a theocracy.
-
So in your ideal democracy only "smart people" get to vote? Because people don't study the classics they shouldn't have a say so in our country's future?
No no, clearly you've misunderstood. Only "smart men" get to vote, the kind who speak Latin, learned the classics, can recite "The Closing of the American Mind" by memory in an upper-class East Coast US accent that isn't quite English. The same men who slept around, and flirted with boys (only out of respect for Socrates), and went to bars and beat their wives every Friday night at 11:04 PM sharp.
-
What I find amusing is that you, a Jew, are arguing for relative morality.
As Athanasius has pointed out, I am not speaking about morality at all. I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical to complain about the fear of you being censored while at the same time calling for censorship of others with whom you disagree.
You have fear that free speech will lead to a country that is no longer America, and your solution is to ban free speech; you don't seem to understand that will lead to this country no longer being America.
I disagree. The whole idea of political law is dependent on one's morality. If it is theocratic in nature, ie a society based upon a common religion, then laws are going to proscribe elements that amount to sedition. Certain kinds of free speech would constitute a political challenge to the established religious morality of the State. It would pursue candidates for political office that would seek to overturn established moral values.
Quite often the argument against this is, If a State is truly religious overall, then no political threat wilil gain traction at the polls, and no serious contender for the religious State will be able to overthrow it. Why not let things play out in the interest of freedom, since too much political control can lead to repression of legitimate concerns?
But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation. The pull towards paganism is a threat even to those with Christian convictions because we are weak towards things like greed and sexual permissiveness. It's best not to allow public temptations to get established and to multiply like a cancer in a Christian society. That's what Scriptures said to the ancient Hebrews under the Law of Moses!
What this means in a more practical sense is that when, in a democracy, there are underlying Christian currents, allowing a homosexual parade down Main Street would be viewed not just as free political speech, but more, as a threat to social order and a menace to a specifically-Christian society with established morals. They don't want their children subjected to this kind of "free speech."
-
No no, clearly you've misunderstood. Only "smart men" get to vote, the kind who speak Latin, learned the classics, can recite "The Closing of the American Mind" by memory in an upper-class East Coast US accent that isn't quite English. The same men who slept around, and flirted with boys (only out of respect for Socrates), and went to bars and beat their wives every Friday night at 11:04 PM sharp.
Oh yikes. Guess I'm out.
-
But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation. The pull towards paganism is a threat even to those with Christian convictions because we are weak towards things like greed and sexual permissiveness. It's best not to allow public temptations to get established and to multiply like a cancer in a Christian society.
So it will be to people like you to decide what is "temptation" and therefore not permissible in the public square? That's the antithesis of freedom and certainly not what this country was founded on.
That's what Scriptures said to the ancient Hebrews under the Law of Moses!
Which nobody today is suggesting should be the foundation of a modern society. Except you and the Taliban I guess.
What this means in a more practical sense is that when, in a democracy, there are underlying Christian currents, allowing a homosexual parade down Main Street would be viewed not just as free political speech, but more, as a threat to social order and a menace to a specifically-Christian society with established morals. They don't want their children subjected to this kind of "free speech."
People are free to do "Non-Christian" things in a free society. You're free to not watch or listen to them.
-
But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation.
By the way, one of the answers to the oft asked question "Why do Jews vote Democrat?" is this sentence right here. Jews have long memories. And in Europe, the inclusion of religion in government had catastrophic consequences for Jews. And Democrats (for all their faults, of which there are many) are opposed to the inclusion of religion in government. I am a lifelong Republican who has never voted Democrat in a national election, and I would vote for Joe Biden 100 times before I voted for a Republican who thinks like this.
-
But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation. The pull towards paganism is a threat even to those with Christian convictions because we are weak towards things like greed and sexual permissiveness. It's best not to allow public temptations to get established and to multiply like a cancer in a Christian society. That's what Scriptures said to the ancient Hebrews under the Law of Moses!
Do you realise that if your theocratic state was instituted, and it followed the prescriptions of, say, American Christians over the last ~60 years, that I would be considered to have a "minority view" that is antithetical to said state?
Since you're talking about views as temptation, you certainly also understand that these cannot be banned, and so, what isn't allowed publicly flourishes privately. I'd like to imagine I would have quite the following.
-
But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation. The pull towards paganism is a threat even to those with Christian convictions because we are weak towards things like greed and sexual permissiveness. It's best not to allow public temptations to get established and to multiply like a cancer in a Christian society.
So it will be to people like you to decide what is "temptation" and therefore not permissible in the public square? That's the antithesis of freedom and certainly not what this country was founded on.
America was, I believe, founded on a compromise between Christians and Deists. Unless one side wins the bulk of the population, the Constitution is basically a truce, and not a treaty.
Our Constitution, from my perspective, is a "living document" expressing a continuing truce, but not an established treaty. My wish is for a Christian society, but the pendulum has moved towards Deism or full-blown religious pluralism.
It is religious belief that forms the philosophy behind political beliefs, atheism being only one kind of religious belief. Both Judaism and Christianity spell out what temptation to sin is. It isn't *my idea,* but rather, a common belief held by either religion, depending on how serious the adherents of each religion are.
That's what Scriptures said to the ancient Hebrews under the Law of Moses!
Which nobody today is suggesting should be the foundation of a modern society. Except you and the Taliban I guess.
If so, I'd be proud to be the only one to stand up for God like Phinehas of old. Numbers 25. :)
-
What's different about it? I mean, what do you think will be different?
Answering for myself: renewed creation, humanity, etc. We won't think, act or behave sinfully. God is just and righteous. Big differences, no?
During that time, will we need laws or politics? Perhaps not? What if someone knows what is the right thing to do in every situation, and they always do it? Would he or she need a law? A government? A police?
-
During that time, will we need laws or politics? Perhaps not? What if someone knows what is the right thing to do in every situation, and they always do it? Would he or she need a law? A government? A police?
I have no idea what the new creation will be like, but some of these things imply their inverse (like law, police) and I very seriously doubt either will be required, at least, in the form we're both thinking.
All I know is, is that the church in the present creation has so put me off that my idea of 'heaven' is being able to get as far away from other Christians for the equivalent of a trillion years if I wanted, and for that to be fine. The church should maybe think about that one for a bit, because I'm not the only one who feels that way.
-
America was, I believe, founded on a compromise between Christians and Deists. Unless one side wins the bulk of the population, the Constitution is basically a truce, and not a treaty.
America was founded on the concepts of freedom and consent of the governed. Nothing about "Christians" vs "deists".
Our Constitution, from my perspective, is a "living document"
If it's a "living document" then it's possible to find all sorts of things in it. Like the "right to have an abortion".
It is religious belief that forms the philosophy behind political beliefs,
Actually the concepts of democracy and free speech are Greek, not Christian and not Jewish.
If so, I'd be proud to be the only one to stand up for God like Phinehas of old. Numbers 25. :)
I'm aware. Most of history's zealots are less charitably judged.
-
America was founded on the concepts of freedom and consent of the governed. Nothing about "Christians" vs "deists".
That's untrue. Have you read this:
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
Actually the concepts of democracy and free speech are Greek, not Christian and not Jewish.
Where did the Greeks get it if not from the consent of the governed? That existed as far back as the 1st king. So democracy is simply the elimination of the king, leaving people to govern themselves.
What made American philosophy "Christian Democracy" is the fact that the consent of the governed involved Christian peoples whose laws were based on the Bible and on the Gospel of Jesus.
Calvin may have proposed a kind of Christian constitutional government that was democratic. I don't claim to have any great knowledge of this. I just know that some reference Calvin as a model leading to American democracy.
The separation of Church and State into separate compartments, religious and secular, was a kind of checks and balances against political autocracy and even religious autocracy. The idea was to use God's Law as a model keeping political abuses of all kinds in check. This is, to some degree, at the core of the democratic spirit, to hold all leadership accountable for how they govern.
-
Many in the 1770s would nit make a distinction between deist and Christian
-
That's untrue.
No, it's very true. The enlightenment ideas of thinkers like John Locke underpin the founder's thinking. And Locke was opposed to religious uniformity.
Where did the Greeks get it
It's a Greek invention. As is freedom of speech. Those are not biblical ideas.
What made American philosophy "Christian Democracy" is the fact that the consent of the governed involved Christian peoples whose laws were based on the Bible and on the Gospel of Jesus.
I don't think the founders viewed America as a "Christian Democracy". My goodness, the Constitution specifically prohibits a religious test for office holders. Article 6 Section 3.
Calvin may have proposed a kind of Christian constitutional government that was democratic. I don't claim to have any great knowledge of this. I just know that some reference Calvin as a model leading to American democracy.
Calvin's ideas are not relevant.
The separation of Church and State into separate compartments, religious and secular, was a kind of checks and balances against political autocracy and even religious autocracy. The idea was to use God's Law as a model keeping political abuses of all kinds in check.
That's...not checks and balances. That's the idea of the freedom to practice religion as one sees fit. Or to not practice at all. You do know that the first people who came here from Europe were fleeing religious persecution, right?
-
Where did the Greeks get it...
They were a philosophical people, you know. The Greeks had two terms, isegoria (political speech, basically) and parrhesia, which is like the idea of speaking frankly (although not necessarily freely). Were you privileged in the ancient world or not, because that mattered too. If one offended the state, or civic religion, or corrupted the youth, then there was no recourse to the authorities about first amendment rights. These were nascent ideas, philosophically grounded, but not rights as we understand them. But then, this is exactly what you have in mind with your theocracy, so I doubt you'd take issue with the practice.
Just remember that hemlock is bitter, so maybe keep that in mind if you ever find yourself at the head of said theocratic state. Protestants do like to be parrhesiastic.
-
They were a philosophical people, you know. The Greeks had two terms, isegoria (political speech, basically) and parrhesia, which is like the idea of speaking frankly (although not necessarily freely). Were you privileged in the ancient world or not, because that mattered too. If one offended the state, or civic religion, or corrupted the youth, then there was no recourse to the authorities about first amendment rights. These were nascent ideas, philosophically grounded, but not rights as we understand them. But then, this is exactly what you have in mind with your theocracy, so I doubt you'd take issue with the practice.
Just remember that hemlock is bitter, so maybe keep that in mind if you ever find yourself at the head of said theocratic state. Protestants do like to be parrhesiastic.
Socrates wasn't my hero--Jesus was. To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy," free speech has to have a social context, informed by the Law of God. If democracy doesn't begin with universal moral principles that are spelled out, if only generally, it produces chaos.
Your word breadth amazes me! parrhesiastic? Takes my breath away! ;)
-
To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy,"
Theocracy : a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
This is not the same as a democracy.
-
No, it's very true. The enlightenment ideas of thinkers like John Locke underpin the founder's thinking. And Locke was opposed to religious uniformity.
Can't agree. The philosophes of the Enlightenment took "Reason" far down the road and away from Christian dogmatism. While it is true that those who framed the American Constitution were largely Deists or accepting of them, to ignore the less political Christian leaders and movements in America at the time is to completely miss my point.
I see this "Compromise" between Deism and Dogmatic Religion to involve a watered down version of Deism or Enlightenment Philosophy to allow for more of a Christian expression and tolerance of the same. The less-tolerant form of Enlightened thinking in Europe led to the French Revolution, which seemed to lack any agreement between Catholicism and Enlightened political classes.
It's a Greek invention. As is freedom of speech. Those are not biblical ideas.
The principles of popular representation are hardly new. The specific form of democracy enjoyed today are modern forms of the same. The King kept the Lords in check, and the Lords kept the King in check. And this came to be codified by political law. Ultimately, the Middle Class kept both King and Lords in check, and the result was Democracy.
I don't think the founders viewed America as a "Christian Democracy". My goodness, the Constitution specifically prohibits a religious test for office holders. Article 6 Section 3.
Deists or Enlightenment Thinkers would emphasize freedom *from* Religion. Christian Dogmatists would emphasize freedom *for* Religion. Freedom for Religion necessarily involves Christian underpinnings that some would refer to as "Theocracy."
Calvin's ideas are not relevant.
I disagree. The union of Church and State outside of Catholicism is a form of Theocracy that applies to Constitutional thinking by Christian Dogmatists.
That's...not checks and balances. That's the idea of the freedom to practice religion as one sees fit. Or to not practice at all. You do know that the first people who came here from Europe were fleeing religious persecution, right?
My wife is English. I have to hang my head every Independence Day! ;) Once again, I disagree with you. The concept of the separation of Church and State has become more doctrinaire as of late. It used to just refer to the separate compartments of rule by the State and by the Church.
They were indeed a "checks and balance" system used against one another. To say otherwise is pure ignorance of European history, and I don't think you're ignorant--I just think you come from a very different place than me.
I'm very much aware of how and why Jews have come to adopt a more liberal view of American law and practice. I'm very happy to see more conservative Jews, but the vast majority would assume the more liberal position to protect themselves against Christian oppression. Do you agree, or am I off the mark?
-
John Calvin was a despised autocrat.
Why don't you be a witness for Christ and quit trying to run the world - unless you don't understand the great commision?
-
Can't agree. The philosophes of the Enlightenment took "Reason" far down the road and away from Christian dogmatism. While it is true that those who framed the American Constitution were largely Deists or accepting of them, to ignore the less political Christian leaders and movements in America at the time is to completely miss my point.
To pretend that they were trying to create a "Christian" state is to ignore facts. Which you seem quite capable of doing when you don't like them.
I see this "Compromise"
There was no compromise. The founders had a vision and enacted it. They had no desire to create a "Christian state" of any sort. They understood, as you apparently do not, that religion and government make a horrible mix.
The principles of popular representation are hardly new. The specific form of democracy enjoyed today are modern forms of the same. The King kept the Lords in check, and the Lords kept the King in check. And this came to be codified by political law. Ultimately, the Middle Class kept both King and Lords in check, and the result was Democracy.
And this has nothing to do with your contention that democracy is biblical.
Deists or Enlightenment Thinkers would emphasize freedom *from* Religion. Christian Dogmatists would emphasize freedom *for* Religion. Freedom for Religion necessarily involves Christian underpinnings that some would refer to as "Theocracy."
No, having the freedom to practice religion as one sees fit is not "theocracy".
I disagree. The union of Church and State
There is no union of church and state. Have you ever heard of the First Amendment? It begins thus: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
My wife is English. I have to hang my head every Independence Day! ;) Once again, I disagree with you. The concept of the separation of Church and State has become more doctrinaire as of late.
See the above. I don't know what you're talking about, but it isn't the on that we live in.
I'm very much aware of how and why Jews have come to adopt a more liberal view of American law and practice. I'm very happy to see more conservative Jews, but the vast majority would assume the more liberal position to protect themselves against Christian oppression. Do you agree, or am I off the mark?
I'm a life long political conservative and even I would adopt a liberal position to protect this country from Christian persecution. See how easy it is to alienate your political allies with this nonsense talk of a Christian state?
-
Socrates wasn't my hero--Jesus was.
Peter Kreeft has a book called 'Socrates meets Jesus'. It's an interesting read if you're ever between books.
To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy," free speech has to have a social context, informed by the Law of God. If democracy doesn't begin with universal moral principles that are spelled out, if only generally, it produces chaos.
That's fine, just don't call it free speech when it isn't.
-
To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy,"
Theocracy : a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
This is not the same as a democracy.
That is only one definition, or one that is pretty ambiguous--too general. When priests rule, the thought is that God rules by revelation to His leadership. Political leaders can also lead by divine revelation, eg King David. Therefore, any political system, including monarchies and democracies, can in effect be theocracies.
Anyway, that's how I'm using the term "theocracy." When God's Law becomes the basis of political rule, the nation is in my judgment a "theocracy."
Obviously, theocracies can be false theocracies or bad theocracies. For example, Islam is a false theocracy because it is based on a false religion, a false concept of God, and a false Law of God, though some of tat Law may be true.
And a bad theocracy would be like some corrupt Catholic nations in the past who led by using God's Law, rather than, ruling by divine revelation. The Law of God, then, became a tool of abuse, to retain political power, rather than to administer God's justice.
-
To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy,"
Theocracy : a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
This is not the same as a democracy.
That is only one definition, or one that is pretty ambiguous--too general. When priests rule, the thought is that God rules by revelation to His leadership. Political leaders can also lead by divine revelation, eg King David. Therefore, any political system, including monarchies and democracies, can in effect be theocracies.
Anyway, that's how I'm using the term "theocracy." When God's Law becomes the basis of political rule, the nation is in my judgment a "theocracy."
Obviously, theocracies can be false theocracies or bad theocracies. For example, Islam is a false theocracy because it is based on a false religion, a false concept of God, and a false Law of God, though some of tat Law may be true.
And a bad theocracy would be like some corrupt Catholic nations in the past who led by using God's Law, rather than, ruling by divine revelation. The Law of God, then, became a tool of abuse, to retain political power, rather than to administer God's justice.
If the basis of political rule is "God's law" (whatever that means), then no, it's not a theocracy, even if those laws form the foundational values of said country. Theocracy and democracy are antithetical, and this 'false' or 'bad' theocracy is to engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy.
-
That is only one definition, or one that is pretty ambiguous--too general. When priests rule, the thought is that God rules by revelation to His leadership. Political leaders can also lead by divine revelation, eg King David. Therefore, any political system, including monarchies and democracies, can in effect be theocracies.
Neither priest nor king nor elected leader today claims to lead by divine revelation.
Obviously, theocracies can be false theocracies or bad theocracies. For example, Islam is a false theocracy because it is based on a false religion, a false concept of God, and a false Law of God
According to you. I'm certain that your idea of a modern theocracy would also be a "false theocracy" according to most people, and that includes most Christians.
And a bad theocracy would be like some corrupt Catholic nations in the past who led by using God's Law, rather than, ruling by divine revelation.
What Catholic nations claimed divine revelation? What Catholic nations claimed to rule by God's law? This is bad history.
-
Neither priest nor king nor elected leader today claims to lead by divine revelation.
Those who believe in the Divine Right of Kings believed they were "anointed by God," and in effect leading by "divine revelation." It was being revealed by God, even if the full picture wasn't being revealed to the king. Their self-guidance, by means of their own mind and conscience, was in effect justified by their position as a king.
I'm certain that your idea of a modern theocracy would also be a "false theocracy" according to most people, and that includes most Christians.
I'm not going to resolve for you which is the "true Theocracy." Leave it to the notion we both agree there is such a thing as a true Kingdom of God? This would be the "true Theocracy," regardless of the fact people have wrong ideas about what it is.
What Catholic nations claimed divine revelation? What Catholic nations claimed to rule by God's law? This is bad history.
It may be "bad history" to you because obviously, Catholic nations were led by Catholic kings influenced by Catholic popes who believed they were in their position by the will of God. But carrying out their policies under "divine revelation" was a matter of some obscurity because Christian people have different ideas about how that takes place.
Some Christians believe that just being in a place of leadership, sanctioned by God, gives them the right to make "inspired decisions.' Some Christians believe they need to actually hear a voice from God, or take their "inspired" decisions based on explicit Scriptural concepts.
But my point is that God's Kingdom does reside among men for Christians and for Jews. When Israel as a nation lived under the Law of God and were given kings appointed by God, they had a Theocracy, and ruled, in a sense, by "divine revelation."
We know that didn't always work out, as even God said. There would be blessings and curses, depending on the level of obedience or disobedience. But clearly, when Israel's leaders obeyed God, they often were viewed as following God's voice to some degree. And the results were clearly given.
The fact Israel is characterized, overall, as disobedient does not militate against the idea that Israel may have lived, silently, in peace for many years in relative obedience under a legitimate Theocracy. Clearly, when obedience to God's Law happened, and leadership was good, peace reigned and enemies were defeated. They led by the prophetic counsel of wise, inspired men.
Christians believe the same is true in Christian history, where Christian kings obeyed the Scriptures and listened to wise counsel, resulting in peace and victory over evil. It is also true that in bad times Christian kings were corrupt and claimed to be following the mandates of God and really were not doing that.
-
Neither priest nor king nor elected leader today claims to lead by divine revelation.
Those who believe in the Divine Right of Kings believed they were "anointed by God," and in effect leading by "divine revelation."
That's not what "Divine Right" means. It simply means that God wanted such and such to be a king, not that God was revealing matters to them as though they were a prophet.
I'm not going to resolve for you which is the "true Theocracy." Leave it to the notion we both agree there is such a thing as a true Kingdom of God? This would be the "true Theocracy," regardless of the fact people have wrong ideas about what it is.
Not in today's world. Not in the pre-messianic era.
It may be "bad history" to you because obviously, Catholic nations were led by Catholic kings influenced by Catholic popes who believed they were in their position by the will of God.
Catholic kings didn't even listen to Catholic popes. So no, it's not bad history.
But my point is that God's Kingdom does reside among men for Christians and for Jews. When Israel as a nation lived under the Law of God and were given kings appointed by God, they had a Theocracy, and ruled, in a sense, by "divine revelation."
Using biblical era Israel as a model for any sort of modern governance is ridiculous. That theocracy had actual prophets who challenged everybody, including their kings, to lead more Godly lives.
Christians believe the same is true in Christian history, where Christian kings obeyed the Scriptures and listened to wise counsel, resulting in peace and victory over evil. It is also true that in bad times Christian kings were corrupt and claimed to be following the mandates of God and really were not doing that.
There were no "Christian kings" on the order of David, Solomon, or Hezekiah. And none counseled by prophets.
-
That's not what "Divine Right" means. It simply means that God wanted such and such to be a king, not that God was revealing matters to them as though they were a prophet.
The reality is that kings who claimed "Divine Rights" believed God either sanctioned their decisions or outright revealed them, whether by prophet or by conscience. What use would it be for a king to claim he ruled by "divine right" if none of his policies were meant to represent God and His revelations?
Using biblical era Israel as a model for any sort of modern governance is ridiculous. That theocracy had actual prophets who challenged everybody, including their kings, to lead more Godly lives.
Separating the experience under God of ancient Israel from modern nations is absurd *to you,* but not to me. God is the same in all eras.
Modern trends wish to isolate religious phenomena in the ancient past, reducing religious experience today to "myth." True Christianity disregards all attempts by religious liberals to deny the supernatural element in religion, finding God's impact on today's society as relevant as in any age.
We don't just follow some ancient moral code, interpreting it to fit in the modern age. Rather, we see God as eternal and equally applicable in all times, ancient and modern. And we are all being judged on that basis.
We are not simply judged by how successfully we adapt to a legal code, but more, by how much we embrace the spirituality of God Himself as the means of personal reformation. So both God and His Law are essential in the modern world.
Making the applicability of God in effect only in the form of an outdated document is what's absurd to me. If theocracy, ie the application of theism to the whole society, was God's choice in the ancient world, it is still His choice in the modern world.
There were no "Christian kings" on the order of David, Solomon, or Hezekiah. And none counseled by prophets.
Since you are not a Christian and biased against Christianity, your opinion holds no weight with me in this regard. In my view, Christian political leaders were very much on the order of David, Solomon, and Hezekiah. Like these ancient leaders, Christian leaders also had their flaws. But also like them these Christian leaders pursued Christian reforms.
-
I am a Christian
There have never been kings that were Christian like Solomon or David
-
This is a highly unusual topic to say the least, and involves an erronous, imaginary take on the revealed faith.
There has been only one true theocracy in human history, which is Israel.
Since the advent of the Church, of which Christ is the head, God abides in this body, which occupies all nations and is not a political entity.
No such thing as a Christian nation - never was, regardless of relative claims, and the world is headed for certain judgment. The Church is invisible, the domain of God's redeemed, and will be taken out.
No political body officiates over the righteousness of God, which is Christ, nor do they have a clue - pearls before swine.
-
The reality is that kings who claimed "Divine Rights" believed God either sanctioned their decisions or outright revealed them, whether by prophet or by conscience. What use would it be for a king to claim he ruled by "divine right" if none of his policies were meant to represent God and His revelations?
By definition:
the right of a sovereign to rule as set forth by the theory of government that holds that a monarch receives the right to rule directly from God and not from the people.
"The right to rule". That's it. Not the other stuff you're adding.
Separating the experience under God of ancient Israel from modern nations is absurd *to you,* but not to me. God is the same in all eras.
But people are not.
The kings in the bible had prophets to challenge them and keep them in line. Post bible, no leaders have prophets to guide them because prophecy no longer exists. This is not a minor point and I don't see how you miss it.
Modern trends wish to isolate religious phenomena in the ancient past, reducing religious experience today to "myth." True Christianity disregards all attempts by religious liberals to deny the supernatural element in religion, finding God's impact on today's society as relevant as in any age.
Yes, because God acts in history. But we no longer have prophecy or divine revelation.
We don't just follow some ancient moral code, interpreting it to fit in the modern age. Rather, we see God as eternal and equally applicable in all times, ancient and modern. And we are all being judged on that basis.
Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
We are not simply judged by how successfully we adapt to a legal code, but more, by how much we embrace the spirituality of God Himself as the means of personal reformation.
If you're Christian, maybe.
Making the applicability of God in effect only in the form of an outdated document is what's absurd to me. If theocracy, ie the application of theism to the whole society, was God's choice in the ancient world, it is still His choice in the modern world.
There are zero examples of any society post bible that adopted theocracy and became anything other than a hell hole. I'd not rush to such a thing, or even talk about it being preferential in any way.
Since you are not a Christian and biased against Christianity, your opinion holds no weight with me in this regard. In my view, Christian political leaders were very much on the order of David, Solomon, and Hezekiah.
Name a single one.
-
"The right to rule". That's it. Not the other stuff you're adding.
Sorry, if you don't see the implications, fine. As I said, the king claiming to be appointed of God thinks He is ruling by divine authority, and does not think he is simply appointed to that authority without consulting the God who appointed him.
We are not dealing just with definitions here, but with realities. In reality, kings who thought they ruled by divine mandate also believed they were responsible to God, even if not to be judged by lessors. Those who believed in God, as leaders, also believed they were responsible to the laws of God, and thus, to divine guidance.
Separating the experience under God of ancient Israel from modern nations is absurd *to you,* but not to me. God is the same in all eras.
But people are not.
The kings in the bible had prophets to challenge them and keep them in line. Post bible, no leaders have prophets to guide them because prophecy no longer exists. This is not a minor point and I don't see how you miss it.
I "miss it" because I don't agree with it. As a Christian I believe prophecy still exists, whether simply in the form of truth or in the form of oracles. Truth has a powerful Divine element in it such that those who recognize the association between truth and Deity are able to be guided by divine revelation, whether kings or others.
Yes, because God acts in history. But we no longer have prophecy or divine revelation.
To me, that is a contradiction. To have God still acting in history is to continue to have prophecy and divine revelation. It requires *faith,* however, to connect truth to divine revelation.
Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Sure it does. If you claim to live by divine revelation, you either do it by reference to past documents or by present perceptions of the conscience. My point is that kings ruling by divine revelation consider both to be important if they were Christian kings ruling by divine right. They were led both by the Bible and by their own conscience, which constitutes "rule by divine revelation."
If theocracy, ie the application of theism to the whole society, was God's choice in the ancient world, it is still His choice in the modern world.
There are zero examples of any society post bible that adopted theocracy and became anything other than a hell hole. I'd not rush to such a thing, or even talk about it being preferential in any way.
For me there is no "post Bible." Christian kings ruled by Bible and by conscience, and thus by divine revelation. Virtually all of the Christian kings who led in Christian theocracies, as I define them, believed their actions would commend themselves to the Christian public, who had the same Bible and the same conscience.
-
As Daniel Jackson taught us, some kings decided they were divine and accountable to no one.
-
As Daniel Jackson taught us, some kings decided they were divine and accountable to no one.
Indeed!
-
Sorry, if you don't see the implications, fine. As I said, the king claiming to be appointed of God thinks He is ruling by divine authority, and does not think he is simply appointed to that authority without consulting the God who appointed him.
Has any king after biblical times every even pretended to consult with God?
We are not dealing just with definitions here, but with realities. In reality, kings who thought they ruled by divine mandate also believed they were responsible to God, even if not to be judged by lessors. Those who believed in God, as leaders, also believed they were responsible to the laws of God, and thus, to divine guidance.
LOL. This is fiction.
I "miss it" because I don't agree with it. As a Christian I believe prophecy still exists
Name one.
To me, that is a contradiction. To have God still acting in history is to continue to have prophecy and divine revelation.
God can act in history without prophecy. Why must you place restrictions of what God can or can't do?
Sure it does. If you claim to live by divine revelation, you either do it by reference to past documents or by present perceptions of the conscience. My point is that kings ruling by divine revelation consider both to be important if they were Christian kings ruling by divine right. They were led both by the Bible and by their own conscience, which constitutes "rule by divine revelation."
Again fiction. Name one king who lived like this.
For me there is no "post Bible." Christian kings ruled by Bible and by conscience, and thus by divine revelation. Virtually all of the Christian kings who led in Christian theocracies, as I define them, believed their actions would commend themselves to the Christian public, who had the same Bible and the same conscience.
I can't think of a single one. Maybe you could helpfully provide an example?
-
Has any king after biblical times every even pretended to consult with God?
Every Christian king with real faith has prayed. And the expectation with prayer is that God answers with wisdom.
James 1. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.
I "miss it" because I don't agree with it. As a Christian I believe prophecy still exists
Name one.
Prophecy is most often not prognostication about the future, although it certainly can be that. Most prophecy has to do with present instruction about how to proceed in a given situation. Christian kings did not write down their "prophecies" normally, since it was a revelation of wisdom as to how to act.
Why must you place restrictions of what God can or can't do?
I'm not sure I've defined God as anything short of omnipotent? The things He cannot do is contradict His own stated intentions, once they are confirmed as irrevocable.
-
I've noticed a distinct lack of a concrete example.
-
I've noticed a distinct lack of a concrete example.
When prayer is *everywhere* no single example needs to be given. Or, do you think there have been no sincere, practicing Christian kings in Europe?
History tends to record the short-comings of kings and political leaders. For example, in the book of Kings or Chronicles you will find rather good kings represented by a checkered history of some short-comings.
The same would be true of NT history where Christian Europe had relatively good kings, at times, eg Charlemagne, whose shortcomings would be listed, tainting their reputation, simply because that's how history is recorded. History records important sidesteps, mistakes, disasters, etc.--just like a modern newspaper.
From reading the papers you might think there isn't a single good politician in WA DC! But I'm sure there are a few good people on both sides of the aisle. That would be true in the UK and elsewhere.
-
When prayer is *everywhere* no single example needs to be given. Or, do you think there have been no sincere, practicing Christian kings in Europe?
You know that song by Tourniquet, 'White knucklin' the rosary'?
Why are we assuming that prayer is indeed proper, Godly prayer?
So, are you using Charlemagne as an example, or did you have someone else in mind, perhaps the obvious single example?
-
And spirituality without Christ and His salvation simply doesn't exist. It's not only about managing sin or establishing a moral code in the world. And to assume that an unsaved individual is involved in a mutual prayer relationship with God in order to effect the world's moral order is, well, a false assumption.
This entire discussion, where it concerns so-called theocracies and moral order appears to be concentrated on establishing God's will on Earth in the sense of political realms.
God's will is that men come to salvation in Christ. There is no Christian society or order without that salvation, and that is the domain and mission of His church, not human rulers or rule.
If a ruler so happens to be a Godly, born-again man that would certainly be his message to men - that they must be born again.
These human based, extra biblical ruminations actually lead people away from Christ, suggesting spiritual hope outside of the Gospel.
-
To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy,"
Theocracy : a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
This is not the same as a democracy.
That is only one definition, or one that is pretty ambiguous--too general. When priests rule, the thought is that God rules by revelation to His leadership. Political leaders can also lead by divine revelation, eg King David. Therefore, any political system, including monarchies and democracies, can in effect be theocracies.
Anyway, that's how I'm using the term "theocracy." When God's Law becomes the basis of political rule, the nation is in my judgment a "theocracy."
Obviously, theocracies can be false theocracies or bad theocracies. For example, Islam is a false theocracy because it is based on a false religion, a false concept of God, and a false Law of God, though some of tat Law may be true.
And a bad theocracy would be like some corrupt Catholic nations in the past who led by using God's Law, rather than, ruling by divine revelation. The Law of God, then, became a tool of abuse, to retain political power, rather than to administer God's justice.
If the basis of political rule is "God's law" (whatever that means), then no, it's not a theocracy, even if those laws form the foundational values of said country. Theocracy and democracy are antithetical, and this 'false' or 'bad' theocracy is to engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy.
We disagree on the definition of "theocracy" as *I'm using the term.* Terms are flexible, and the user has to set the limits of his own definition. I've done that, and your argument seems to be that this is invalid.
-
Why are we assuming that prayer is indeed proper, Godly prayer?
So, are you using Charlemagne as an example, or did you have someone else in mind, perhaps the obvious single example?
I resist naming names, lest we find ourselves debating "how good a Christian" someone in authority is. When people are at that altitude, they are sitting ducks for those who *aren't* in that position. ;)
I'm assuming prayer is godly when practiced by kings and queens who take James seriously.
-
And spirituality without Christ and His salvation simply doesn't exist. It's not only about managing sin or establishing a moral code in the world. And to assume that an unsaved individual is involved in a mutual prayer relationship with God in order to effect the world's moral order is, well, a false assumption.
This entire discussion, where it concerns so-called theocracies and moral order appears to be concentrated on establishing God's will on Earth in the sense of political realms.
God's will is that men come to salvation in Christ. There is no Christian society or order without that salvation, and that is the domain and mission of His church, not human rulers or rule.
If a ruler so happens to be a Godly, born-again man that would certainly be his message to men - that they must be born again.
These human based, extra biblical ruminations actually lead people away from Christ, suggesting spiritual hope outside of the Gospel.
You seem to set at odds the Church and the Political Realm. They are intertwined. In older Christian States they were termed secular rulers and ecclesiastical rulers. However, the secular rulers were still regarded as Christian rulers--secularism was not then what it is now.
The idea that God is interested in individual salvation but not in the State is contradicted by the Scriptures, particularly in the OT Scriptures. God obviously is concerned with social justice, along with individual personal relationships with men and women.
If God is not interested in society, then He cares nothing for social justice. But if He does care about social justice, then He is obviously concerned about political leadership, or the State.
The fact the NT Scriptures were written in a time of Israel's national decline, and in a time when the Gospel reached out to a pagan Empire, says nothing about God's supposed disinterest in a Christian State. He plans to eventually bring Israel back into relationship with Himself, by turning it into a Christian State. And we already know that the Roman Empire at some point was Christianized, even if in modern times Roman Christianity has become secularized and more pagan.
The fact religious states apostacize does not mean Salvation is apolitical or disinterested in a return to a Christian State. The Gospel and its Grace is able to withstand religious decline and apostasy, until God brings judgment and restores the Christian State.
Biblically, the theocracy, or the state led by Divine Law, is called "the Kingdom of God." Today this is, I believe, the Christian State, whether now, as temporal forms of the Kingdom, or in the eschatological future in its eternal form.
-
We disagree on the definition of "theocracy" as *I'm using the term.* Terms are flexible, and the user has to set the limits of his own definition. I've done that, and your argument seems to be that this is invalid.
The problem doesn't regard validity or invalidity (this is a question younger people cast towards their identity, it's exhausting, and I imagine devastating). The problem is whether your definition of theocracy is in fact theocracy and not something else. It's something else
I resist naming names, lest we find ourselves debating "how good a Christian" someone in authority is. When people are at that altitude, they are sitting ducks for those who *aren't* in that position. ;)
You made a claim, so to who are you appealing in support of that claim?
-
When prayer is *everywhere* no single example needs to be given.
And no single example can be provided. Perhaps because you can't name any?
-
Every Christian king with real faith has prayed.
So you should have no problem naming one.
Prophecy is most often not prognostication about the future, although it certainly can be that. Most prophecy has to do with present instruction about how to proceed in a given situation. Christian kings did not write down their "prophecies" normally, since it was a revelation of wisdom as to how to act.
So...you can't name on of these, either.
I'm not sure I've defined God as anything short of omnipotent? The things He cannot do is contradict His own stated intentions, once they are confirmed as irrevocable.
And yet you still place restrictions on His behavior. How peculiar.
-
We disagree on the definition of "theocracy" as *I'm using the term.* Terms are flexible, and the user has to set the limits of his own definition. I've done that, and your argument seems to be that this is invalid.
The problem doesn't regard validity or invalidity (this is a question younger people cast towards their identity, it's exhausting, and I imagine devastating). The problem is whether your definition of theocracy is in fact theocracy and not something else. It's something else
The Kingdom of God conveys the idea of a political state ruled by God. I would reference both the Scriptures and modern theological works concerning the Kingdom of God, such as works written by George E. Ladd.
With respect to Ladd and to his reflections about the Kingdom of God, it is a very arguable subject. There is no discernible effort at identifying the eschatological Kingdom with temporal kingdoms in history.
And so, I'm arguing not for eschatological ideas about the Kingdom, but about temporal examples of God's Kingdom.
With respect to the Scriptures, I've referenced the following:
Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
Since we live in a time of Christian Apostacy in Europe and around the world any sense of a Christian Theocracy is being lost. It is now treated as if the idea is radical. Instead, a Theocracy is now viewed as in the sense of an Islamic Caliphate led by an Ayatollah. This is not what I mean.
A Christian State is now viewed as intolerant, akin to the time of the Catholic Crusades and Inquisitions. And Enlightenment Philosophy has now been enthroned as the only proper "reasoned approach" towards political peace and stability.
Tolerance has replaced Grace, which is in effect a code word for "anything goes." In the end, "anything goes" will lead to anarchy, and to eventual dictatorship of various kinds within the State, just to keep the order.
-
When prayer is *everywhere* no single example needs to be given.
And no single example can be provided. Perhaps because you can't name any?
Sure I could. But as I said elsewhere, that would just begin an "inquisatorial" style examination of how "Christian" such a king or queen would be. I suggested Charlemagne--add to that Theodosius. How far do I need to go before you begin your "inquisition?"
-
Every Christian king with real faith has prayed.
So you should have no problem naming one.
I don't.
Prophecy is most often not prognostication about the future, although it certainly can be that. Most prophecy has to do with present instruction about how to proceed in a given situation. Christian kings did not write down their "prophecies" normally, since it was a revelation of wisdom as to how to act.
So...you can't name on of these, either.
As I said, prophetic material is most often not written down. It is displayed in behavior responding, by conscience, to God's internal word. "My word is near you." (Deut 30.14)
The evidence of God's word is often seen in the results of Man's obedience to God's internal word. For example, Charlemagne spread the idea of Christian states in Europe, in response to God's word to honor God in the state. Theodosius spread the idea of the Christian state in response to God's word concerning His Law governing the State, as viewed in the Law of Moses.
You acknowledge the reality of a Divine Theocracy in ancient Israel. It is therefore a contradiction when you wish to dismiss the same idea upon another religion in modern times. Would you deny that King David followed a prophetic word to his own conscience when establishing his policies in the Kingdom?
-
Sure I could. But as I said elsewhere, that would just begin an "inquisatorial" style examination of how "Christian" such a king or queen would be.
Of course it would. If you're holding some king up as an idea Christian king, we are free to examine their behavior.
I suggested Charlemagne
"Let no Jew presume to have a money-changer's table in his house, nor shall he presume to sell wine, grain, or other commodities there. But if it be discovered that he has done so all his goods shall be taken away from him, and he shall be imprisoned until he is brought into our presence."
-
Ok Fenris… you heard the man…
Fork it over… :o
Where is my double face palm emoji?
🤦♂️🙈
-
Sure I could. But as I said elsewhere, that would just begin an "inquisatorial" style examination of how "Christian" such a king or queen would be.
Of course it would. If you're holding some king up as an idea Christian king, we are free to examine their behavior.
I suggested Charlemagne
"Let no Jew presume to have a money-changer's table in his house, nor shall he presume to sell wine, grain, or other commodities there. But if it be discovered that he has done so all his goods shall be taken away from him, and he shall be imprisoned until he is brought into our presence."
It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy. You are judging the standards of a Christian theocracy by the standards of Enlightenment ideals of religious pluralism.
I have no idea how threatening Judaism may have been in Charlemagne's time? I can't even begin to judge to what degree the practice of Judaism in that time might constitute "sedition?"
But it is clear that in either a Jewish Theocracy or a Christian Theocracy, the religion is allied with the state such that at some point another religion would constitute a threat to the unity of the State. In that case, other religions would be disallowed to the extent that they present a real threat.
For example, some leaders in Israel would consider it a threat to the Jewish State to allow back in all of the Palestinians who have fled Israel during times of Arab attack. The notion that all of these Palestinians could enter back into the Jewish State could upend a democracy that could be over-ruled by a predominance of Arab Muslims who are hostile to Jewish beliefs and wish to end any notion of a "Jewish State" altogether. They might wish to make Israel just another Islamic State?
If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism.
But it's a good question. Again, identifying particular names just gives you opportunity to question Christianity itself, as if human flaws can invalidate other aspects of a religion that are positive.
Would you invalidate Judaism because it crucified Jesus or murdered Christians in the 1st century? Or would you invalidate King David's prophetic prowess because he slept with Bathsheba and occasionally made serious errors in his life?
Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.
The standards Charlemagne set forth, as you indicated, would be acceptable to Jewish ethics and would not constitute a threat to Judaism in compliance with God's Law. The Law of God as represented in the OT Scriptures is what NT Christianity claims is fulfilled. Greed would be prohibited under the Law. Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury.
-
Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.
In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.
-
Ok Fenris… you heard the man…
Fork it over… :o
Where is my double face palm emoji?
🤦♂️🙈
Busted
-
Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.
In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.
I could not agree more. Holy smokes.
-
It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy. You are judging the standards of a Christian theocracy by the standards of Enlightenment ideals of religious pluralism.
I have no idea how threatening Judaism may have been in Charlemagne's time? I can't even begin to judge to what degree the practice of Judaism in that time might constitute "sedition?"
But it is clear that in either a Jewish Theocracy or a Christian Theocracy, the religion is allied with the state such that at some point another religion would constitute a threat to the unity of the State. In that case, other religions would be disallowed to the extent that they present a real threat.
For example, some leaders in Israel would consider it a threat to the Jewish State to allow back in all of the Palestinians who have fled Israel during times of Arab attack. The notion that all of these Palestinians could enter back into the Jewish State could upend a democracy that could be over-ruled by a predominance of Arab Muslims who are hostile to Jewish beliefs and wish to end any notion of a "Jewish State" altogether. They might wish to make Israel just another Islamic State?
If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism.
But it's a good question. Again, identifying particular names just gives you opportunity to question Christianity itself, as if human flaws can invalidate other aspects of a religion that are positive.
Would you invalidate Judaism because it crucified Jesus or murdered Christians in the 1st century? Or would you invalidate King David's prophetic prowess because he slept with Bathsheba and occasionally made serious errors in his life?
Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.
The standards Charlemagne set forth, as you indicated, would be acceptable to Jewish ethics and would not constitute a threat to Judaism in compliance with God's Law. The Law of God as represented in the OT Scriptures is what NT Christianity claims is fulfilled. Greed would be prohibited under the Law. Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury.
Just quoting this in it's entirety so you can't edit it out. Because wow do you have a tolerance for oppression when it's a cause that you agree with. Anything can be justified using this mindset and history is full of leaders that did exactly that. You may as well have included king Ferdinand as a "Christian king" when he did the "Christian thing" and expelled every Jew in Spain.
You're bigoted, intolerant, and willing to justify any misdeed in the name of your own personal religious belief.
-
Every Christian king with real faith has prayed.
So you should have no problem naming one.
I don't.
What about the Mayflower, do you see that as an example?
-
What about the Mayflower, do you see that as an example?
An example of what?
-
What about the Mayflower, do you see that as an example?
An example of what?
You were asked to give divine examples, you did not gave one, so I am curious what you think about the Mayflower case.
Did the Pilgrims make a covenant with God?
-
Hey, here are some thoughts from a great self professed Christian leader trying to establish a theocratic state…who knows, Fenris, there may be something to this “theocracy” idea after all…
“We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the [people]. The [state] as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."
“ I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
“ I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”
“ As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy [nation], for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.”
“ The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality.”
“ And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.”
“ My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...”
“ By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ...”
“ Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years. ”
-
Hey, here are some thoughts from a great self professed Christian leader trying to establish a theocratic state…
Brutal.
Listen, we can all agree that man is fallen. And that power corrupts. Those things don't magically change when someone says "I'm doing this because God told me to." Many horrible things were done and people claimed it was God who ordered them. That alone should make us steer clear of any "divine mandated leadership".
-
What about the Mayflower, do you see that as an example?
An example of what?
You were asked to give divine examples, you did not gave one, so I am curious what you think about the Mayflower case.
Did the Pilgrims make a covenant with God?
Yea, I didn't know if you were mocking the idea, or serious? I read "The Light and the Glory" a long time ago, by Peter Marshall. Great book on the mix of Christianity with early Americans.
Clearly, we were closer then to what I'm calling activities that were "theocratic" in nature. Actually, many liberals, pagans, and non-Christians believe that imposing any kind of Christian morality is an example of theocracy and illegitimate in a secular society.
-
It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy. You are judging the standards of a Christian theocracy by the standards of Enlightenment ideals of religious pluralism.
I have no idea how threatening Judaism may have been in Charlemagne's time? I can't even begin to judge to what degree the practice of Judaism in that time might constitute "sedition?"
But it is clear that in either a Jewish Theocracy or a Christian Theocracy, the religion is allied with the state such that at some point another religion would constitute a threat to the unity of the State. In that case, other religions would be disallowed to the extent that they present a real threat.
For example, some leaders in Israel would consider it a threat to the Jewish State to allow back in all of the Palestinians who have fled Israel during times of Arab attack. The notion that all of these Palestinians could enter back into the Jewish State could upend a democracy that could be over-ruled by a predominance of Arab Muslims who are hostile to Jewish beliefs and wish to end any notion of a "Jewish State" altogether. They might wish to make Israel just another Islamic State?
If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism.
But it's a good question. Again, identifying particular names just gives you opportunity to question Christianity itself, as if human flaws can invalidate other aspects of a religion that are positive.
Would you invalidate Judaism because it crucified Jesus or murdered Christians in the 1st century? Or would you invalidate King David's prophetic prowess because he slept with Bathsheba and occasionally made serious errors in his life?
Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.
The standards Charlemagne set forth, as you indicated, would be acceptable to Jewish ethics and would not constitute a threat to Judaism in compliance with God's Law. The Law of God as represented in the OT Scriptures is what NT Christianity claims is fulfilled. Greed would be prohibited under the Law. Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury.
Just quoting this in it's entirety so you can't edit it out. Because wow do you have a tolerance for oppression when it's a cause that you agree with. Anything can be justified using this mindset and history is full of leaders that did exactly that. You may as well have included king Ferdinand as a "Christian king" when he did the "Christian thing" and expelled every Jew in Spain.
You're bigoted, intolerant, and willing to justify any misdeed in the name of your own personal religious belief.
Oh I see how it works on this forum. I get trashed, and told to shut up and not defend myself. I give apologies, and you have an open invitation to call me a bigot?
Sorry, friend, but Christianity declares its way is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. It does allow for time to collect facts and make free decisions before judgment. But since I already have submitted to Him who is the Way, I'll not compromise truth just to make you feel better.
People from other religions tried to dilute Christian truth in Christian states and upset Christian leaders, who want the Christian public to be at peace with a single set of moral values. You cannot have greed and usury in the same place as unselfishness and charity.
Both Jews and Christians can live in a state in which morals based on the Law are agreed upon. But attacking this kind of Christian moral exclusivity will not win you acceptance in a Christian society.
Jewish People should agree with Christian morality, since it is based on the Jewish Law. The only Jews who upset Christians were ones who constantly assail Christians for wanting a Christian society and for being intolerant of corrupted morals that are present in other religions.
-
Oh I see how it works on this forum. I get trashed, and told to shut up and not defend myself. I give apologies, and you have an open invitation to call me a bigot?
You haven't been told to shut up and you haven't been told not to defend yourself. You barely apologised, but at least you said something. You're being asked to be mindful of how you say what you say. You're not a victim.
Now, Fenris hasn't joked about friendly suicide bombers, but he has made a serious accusation.
Hmm...
"It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy"
"If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism."
"Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury."
That's to say nothing of the suicide bomber comment, and so on.
You may not be bigoted and intolerant, but you're writing in such a way that it comes across as bigoted and intolerant. Since a few special Germans have already been quoted, do you suppose that Judaism was peacefully practised as a private religion in Germany in the early 20th century, or was it a real threat to the state? We know what the answer is, so then, why would this argument pass muster with respect to Charlemagne?
In the same spirit of uncompromising adherence to the truth, I don't see how Fenris' comments constitute "trashing you". I'm trying to allow conversation as much as is reasonably possible, without enforcing artificial limits. However, that means taking a considered approach with one's words, and it means taking 'it' if 'it' is also given.
We could always do the boring:
- Don't name and shame
- Make sure comments pertain only to the argument, not the arguer
And so on, but that's such a dry, academic attitude. If you think that should be the case, however, I'm all ears. In the meantime, if you aren't bigoted and intolerant, just be mindful of the things you're saying.
Sorry, friend, but Christianity declares its way is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. It does allow for time to collect facts and make free decisions before judgment. But since I already have submitted to Him who is the Way, I'll not compromise truth just to make you feel better.
Jesus said that about Himself, not about Christianity. I, personally, take this to mean that salvation for anyone is through Christ, not that everyone who is saved will know what Christianity is. An easy immediate example is the thief on the cross.
Both Jews and Christians can live in a state in which morals based on the Law are agreed upon. But attacking this kind of Christian moral exclusivity will not win you acceptance in a Christian society.
Jewish People should agree with Christian morality, since it is based on the Jewish Law. The only Jews who upset Christians were ones who constantly assail Christians for wanting a Christian society and for being intolerant of corrupted morals that are present in other religions.
See, like, this is something that isn't winning any rhetorical awards.
-
Oh I see how it works on this forum. I get trashed, and told to shut up and not defend myself. I give apologies, and you have an open invitation to call me a bigot?
You haven't been told to shut up and you haven't been told not to defend yourself. You barely apologised, but at least you said something. You're being asked to be mindful of how you say what you say. You're not a victim.
You were *definitely* telling me to shut up. You said you had the last word, and you *meant it.*
Now, Fenris hasn't joked about friendly suicide bombers, but he has made a serious accusation.
Well then, I thought I wasn't supposed to talk about this any more?
Hmm...
"It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy"
"If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism."
"Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury."
That's to say nothing of the suicide bomber comment, and so on.
I'm not supposed to say anything more about that. But you certainly feel free?
You may not be bigoted and intolerant, but you're writing in such a way that it comes across as bigoted and intolerant. Since a few special Germans have already been quoted, do you suppose that Judaism was peacefully practised as a private religion in Germany in the early 20th century, or was it a real threat to the state? We know what the answer is, so then, why would this argument pass muster with respect to Charlemagne?
I would love to discuss it. But I was being shown the door if I didn't apologize and accepted never to talk about it again.
In the same spirit of uncompromising adherence to the truth, I don't see how Fenris' comments constitute "trashing you". I'm trying to allow conversation as much as is reasonably possible, without enforcing artificial limits. However, that means taking a considered approach with one's words, and it means taking 'it' if 'it' is also given.
Another way of saying, you're biased towards Fenris' position, which is okay, unless you don't apply the same standards to both of us. Now, if I called him a "bigot," I think I'd be shown the door. Or, am I wrong?
We could always do the boring:
I spent 10 years on an unmoderated Usenet group called alt.messianic, where I argued with a Jewish guy. He had the same kinds of thoughts as Fenris, but not once did anybody think to ban the other. Call me names all you want, but don't then just pick on one side to tell him, "I don't want to hear this anymore."
Let me know when I can start telling you how I feel again? Or, are you going to ban me for saying that?
-
Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.
In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.
So you're saying the Bible itself isn't pretty? No, it's a pretty ugly picture, but it's in the Bible, that I can say for sure. My only question is, Why don't you know that?
-
Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.
In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.
I could not agree more. Holy smokes.
Holy Smokes. You don't read or believe your own Bible!
Jer 25.8 Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: “Because you have not listened to my words, 9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,” declares the Lord, “and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. 10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
God took away the Kingdom (theocracy) from Israel and gave it (the theocracy) to Rome. Thus, the pagan nation, Rome, that had exiled Israel in 70 AD became the Christian Kingdom where exiled Jews lived, having been banished into territories where they had to serve the interests of Christian states. These are facts of history, and as I showed, completely biblically based.
If you're a liberal or a Jew, you may not like this. But facts are "hard things."
-
I give apologies,
Your apology was along the lines of "I'm sorry you were offended by what I said" without conceding that you actually said something offensive.
and you have an open invitation to call me a bigot?
You are willing to excuse great intolerance and great injustice because it was committed by a so-called Christian. In your own words, it was OK for Charlamagne to oppress Jews because they might have been "seditious". And you think it's funny to joke about Muslims being suicide bombers. What else is one to conclude?
Sorry, friend, but Christianity declares its way is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. It does allow for time to collect facts and make free decisions before judgment. But since I already have submitted to Him who is the Way, I'll not compromise truth just to make you feel better.
Nobody is asking you to compromise anything. Live your life how you see fit. And leave space for others to live their lives as they see fit.
Both Jews and Christians can live in a state in which morals based on the Law are agreed upon. But attacking this kind of Christian moral exclusivity will not win you acceptance in a Christian society.
I shouldn't have to "win acceptance" in a free society.
Jewish People should agree with Christian morality, since it is based on the Jewish Law. The only Jews who upset Christians were ones who constantly assail Christians for wanting a Christian society and for being intolerant of corrupted morals that are present in other religions.
I don't have a problem with biblical values. I do have a problem with people thinking it's ok to force their views on others.
-
Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.
In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.
So you're saying the Bible itself isn't pretty? No, it's a pretty ugly picture, but it's in the Bible, that I can say for sure. My only question is, Why don't you know that?
Where it concerns the current Jewish Diaspora, you would be hard-pressed to present the pertinent scripture and verse, and I don't mean Bible sections referring to the Babylon captivity. By stating that "Christians who believe the Bible" understand, is enormously ingenuous. Speak the scripture, in context, and by "in context" it would be enormously helpful to demonstrate where you have the authority to decide where Israel belongs in this age and why. Your quote, above is not substantiated by any scripture, but is, in fact ad-libbing.
to learn service to God under harsh conditions...
Really?
But you seem to feel it is your place to say and to put the Jew in his place, which would apparently be one of the directives of your unauthorized little theocracy. You are obviously not the first, and what this has to do with the testimony of any Christian is beyond me.
Considering what the Church has in Christ and the directives of the great commission and NT prophecy I find this desire towards any theocracy in this age other than that which God Himself ordains and manifests in Christ's return to be highly suspect and dangerous to the testimony of the Church.
Apparently doesn't bode well for the Jew either.
-
I give apologies,
Your apology was along the lines of "I'm sorry you were offended by what I said" without conceding that you actually said something offensive.
Sorry, I'm not allowed to say anything more about this. That was the word I received.
And quite frankly, calling me a bigot I have no more use for you.
-
Where it concerns the current Jewish Diaspora, you would be hard-pressed to present the pertinent scripture and verse, and I don't mean Bible sections referring to the Babylon captivity.
So somehow when the Bible sections referring to the Babylon captivity prove my point, suddenly that becomes irrelevant? Or, are you calling it an exception, because I can show you many more like examples?
By stating that "Christians who believe the Bible" understand, is enormously ingenuous.
Disingenuous? I know what you mean because I was only narrowly applying this to my own point of view. Obviously, other Christians, like yourself, would disagree with it, and would feel that you believe the Bible means something else.
My challenge to you is, if you claim to believe the Bible, why not believe what God said about the Babylonian Captivity? Why not believe what Jesus said, in Luke, about the Jewish Diaspora in the time of Rome?
Speak the scripture, in context, and by "in context" it would be enormously helpful to demonstrate where you have the authority to decide where Israel belongs in this age and why. Your quote, above is not substantiated by any scripture, but is, in fact ad-libbing.
Actually, you're the one who's ad-libbing. I gave you Scriptures. You give me your own word, your own opinion, your own dogmatism.
to learn service to God under harsh conditions...
Really?
But you seem to feel it is your place to say and to put the Jew in his place, which would apparently be one of the directives of your unauthorized little theocracy. You are obviously not the first, and what this has to do with the testimony of any Christian is beyond me.
In your apparently sheltered world, you don't know how Christians have viewed the Kingdom of God through the centuries. Did you know that some early Americans saw the new American colonies as a new opportunity to build God's Kingdom in the Americas?
So far from this being weird, it is true to history, and only lost in our current group think. Being raised up in Western educational institutions we are taught that religious dogma is unreasonable and a matter of blind faith. And yet, somehow the very philosophy of reason emerged from Christian thinkers.
Considering what the Church has in Christ and the directives of the great commission and NT prophecy I find this desire towards any theocracy in this age other than that which God Himself ordains and manifests in Christ's return to be highly suspect and dangerous to the testimony of the Church.
Apparently doesn't bode well for the Jew either.
I have nothing but love and concern for the Jew in Christian society. Building a society with exclusively-Christian morals would have zero interest in dictating beliefs--only certain practices that are antithetical to Christian morality--the very things the observant Jew would agree with.
-
Did the Pilgrims make a covenant with God?
Yea, I didn't know if you were mocking the idea, or serious? I read "The Light and the Glory" a long time ago, by Peter Marshall. Great book on the mix of Christianity with early Americans.
Clearly, we were closer then to what I'm calling activities that were "theocratic" in nature. Actually, many liberals, pagans, and non-Christians believe that imposing any kind of Christian morality is an example of theocracy and illegitimate in a secular society.
We know that in our eternal future life we will live in a perfect theocracy ruled by our Savior. If I look at history it's obvious (at least for me) that all human efforts have failed, including Israel. And maybe that's the lesson we have to learn, the lesson from the Garden when A&E were lured into to believe they could be like God and did not need God any longer, the result, one big mess.
It's my opinion (with the exception of Israel, till it lasted in AD 70) that God seldom interferes in world events and let it play out till enough is enough. Life on Earth is an excellent environment to learn about good and evil.
-
You were *definitely* telling me to shut up. You said you had the last word, and you *meant it.*
What I said was "either apologise or let's not say anything more about it (because it's only resulting in arguing)". So if you want to take that as being told to "shut up" then go for it. I would have closed the thread for a bit, by the way.
Also, such conversational guidance is my prerogative. Having said that, let's move on.
Well then, I thought I wasn't supposed to talk about this any more?
I'm not supposed to say anything more about that. But you certainly feel free?
I would love to discuss it. But I was being shown the door if I didn't apologize and accepted never to talk about it again.
Three things:
1. You claimed Fenris was calling you names, and that you were being trashed by the forum. That demands a response, and you got it.
2. You weren't threatened with being shown the door if you didn't apologise.
3. The attitude you're displaying is infantile.
Another way of saying, you're biased towards Fenris' position, which is okay, unless you don't apply the same standards to both of us. Now, if I called him a "bigot," I think I'd be shown the door. Or, am I wrong?
You're free to make the claim here, or in DM, if you think Fenris has crossed the line. But if you want to call him a bigot make sure you have evidence to back it up. If anyone else thinks I'm favouring Fenris and applying a double standard they're invited to reach out as well.
With that in mind, Fenris isn't the one who joked about suicide bombers, or started threads about the 'problem with [Christianity]', and he has not said anything analogous to what you have said about the potential treatment of Jews in a Christian theocracy.
We only know each other by what we write.
I spent 10 years on an unmoderated Usenet group called alt.messianic, where I argued with a Jewish guy. He had the same kinds of thoughts as Fenris, but not once did anybody think to ban the other. Call me names all you want, but don't then just pick on one side to tell him, "I don't want to hear this anymore."
The problem for you is that I haven't threatened to ban you. If you want to see what that looks like, review my recent replies to journeyman.
Let me know when I can start telling you how I feel again? Or, are you going to ban me for saying that?
I'm giving and have given you a lot of leeway, and it's your own fault if you push it.
-
Passive aggressive behavior is always entertaining except when it’s not
-
You were *definitely* telling me to shut up. You said you had the last word, and you *meant it.*
What I said was "either apologise or let's not say anything more about it (because it's only resulting in arguing)". So if you want to take that as being told to "shut up" then go for it. I would have closed the thread for a bit, by the way.
Also, such conversational guidance is my prerogative. Having said that, let's move on.
Fine with me. I have no wish at all to keep the fire burning on a subject that is already old and repetitive.
With that in mind, Fenris isn't the one who joked about suicide bombers, or started threads about the 'problem with [Christianity]', and he has not said anything analogous to what you have said about the potential treatment of Jews in a Christian theocracy.
Harry steps onto his jet to go on a wonderful vacation. Everything is wonderful, and the flight attendants are accommodating. I'm thankful that things are starting out so well, after a long season of trouble on a particular forum.
But then suddenly I turn and sitting across the aisle from me is a man with a turban on his head, who looks Arabic, and has what looks like a large pouch where his belt would be. I suddenly have images of suicide bombers in the Middle East, and have this terrible sinking feeling that this may not be the pleasure trip I thought it was going to be.
I've had similar experiences, and looking back on it I laugh, not to mock foreigners, not to mock Arabs, nor to mock people who wear turbans. I laugh because the odds of this guy being a real suicide bomber is pretty bad, and at any rate, I don't hate other ethnicities. So it's a curious place to find yourself in as a Christian. But the experience is real.
Suddenly because I relate this experience in the same humor in which I originally saw it, I'm now called a bigot, malicious, infantile, etc. I'm ordered to apologize, or it is suggested, Why not just apologize and move on?
So I apologize without really feeling I did anything wrong. But everybody seems to think so, so I give the apology--half-hearted yes, because I know I'm not really prejudiced, and I know I don't really believe all overweight Arabs are suicide bombers! Heck, I laughed last week at church when a black friend of mine suggested all white people look alike! ;)
So yes, I'd love to move on, but also wish to have freedom to defend what my true thoughts are, particularly when it's falsely suggested that I'm prejudiced and malicious, and aiming something negative at somebody else. Fenris having Muslim friends is no different than my having Muslim relatives. How am I attacking all Muslims, except that I don't agree with their religion?
Anyway, I'd love to put this to sleep. And I appreciate that you're giving me freedom to respond. I truly thought you were saying, "not one more word on this." So I guess, with a half-hearted apology I can say these few words?
I really do feel bad that others have taken this wrong. But for some, nothing I say will be believed, perhaps because I don't espouse their particular brand of religion, and am pretty strong on stating antithetical beliefs?
-
You make a lot of assumption about what others may or may not believe or how others may or may not respond
Meh…
-
Did the Pilgrims make a covenant with God?
Yea, I didn't know if you were mocking the idea, or serious? I read "The Light and the Glory" a long time ago, by Peter Marshall. Great book on the mix of Christianity with early Americans.
Clearly, we were closer then to what I'm calling activities that were "theocratic" in nature. Actually, many liberals, pagans, and non-Christians believe that imposing any kind of Christian morality is an example of theocracy and illegitimate in a secular society.
We know that in our eternal future life we will live in a perfect theocracy ruled by our Savior. If I look at history it's obvious (at least for me) that all human efforts have failed, including Israel. And maybe that's the lesson we have to learn, the lesson from the Garden when A&E were lured into to believe they could be like God and did not need God any longer, the result, one big mess.
It's my opinion (with the exception of Israel, till it lasted in AD 70) that God seldom interferes in world events and let it play out till enough is enough. Life on Earth is an excellent environment to learn about good and evil.
I think there's a lot of truth in that. I don't, of course, agree with the Deist version that God just wound up the clock of the universe, and then went away, leaving the clock to run on its own.
But I do think God removes Himself to the degree people make their own free choices. Some want a world autonomous and free of divine interference. Some want God involved every step along the way.
God cannot but be involved in what He created, but still is a bit hard to see. He's invisible, and what we see in history is interpreted differently depending upon what you wish to believe.
Thanks for your thoughts.
-
So somehow when the Bible sections referring to the Babylon captivity prove my point, suddenly that becomes irrelevant? Or, are you calling it an exception, because I can show you many more like examples?
Or, perhaps you can't.
The Babylonian captivity has nothing to do with the current Jewish Diaspora, thus: no points proven. Try to quote the appropriate scripture, if you are going to, in proper context, unless the scripture is actually silent on the issue at hand. Otherwise you are attempting to read into scripture.
My challenge to you is, if you claim to believe the Bible, why not believe what God said about the Babylonian Captivity? Why not believe what Jesus said, in Luke, about the Jewish Diaspora in the time of Rome?
I believe the scriptures, regardless the topic, which in our current conversation is not Babylon. Cite the appropriate scripture and verse, please. That's the tried and tested method for accurately conveying what the Bible actually says.
Did you know that some early Americans saw the new American colonies as a new opportunity to build God's Kingdom in the Americas?
Yes. Mormons, among others. They all failed.
I have nothing but love and concern for the Jew in Christian society. Building a society with exclusively-Christian morals would have zero interest in dictating beliefs--only certain practices that are antithetical to Christian morality--the very things the observant Jew would agree with.
Yeah.
Oh, by the way, the freedoms of the Jewish race and religion are currently protected under the US constitution. It's called democracy. My hope is to keep it that way.
-
So somehow when the Bible sections referring to the Babylon captivity prove my point, suddenly that becomes irrelevant? Or, are you calling it an exception, because I can show you many more like examples?
Or, perhaps you can't.
Let's bring this back into focus. I said:
"Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State."
And you claimed I was inventing a new religion, or something to that effect. I've quoted both the Babylonian Captivity, which is relevant to these things, and the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus says essentially the same thing, that Israel went into exile to submit to other nations as a punishment for their sins. There is nothing controversial about this. And saying this I agree with the Bible and am not making up a new religion.
The Babylonian captivity has nothing to do with the current Jewish Diaspora, thus: no points proven. Try to quote the appropriate scripture, if you are going to, in proper context, unless the scripture is actually silent on the issue at hand. Otherwise you are attempting to read into scripture.
The Babylonian Captivity is completely appropriate to the original statement I made, which you took issue with. Perhaps you need to clarify what makes my statement some kind of "new religion?"
Did you know that some early Americans saw the new American colonies as a new opportunity to build God's Kingdom in the Americas?
Yes. Mormons, among others. They all failed.
I was talking more along the lines of conventional Christians who wanted America to be a new city set on a hill. They didn't fail--America was a Christian nation, although those days may now be past. In my view, the U.S. was yet another kind of "theocracy," albeit using my definition, and not how others define "theocracy."
Humanists and liberals are always upset because of the latent Christianity contained within American Law. They are always trying to root out evidence of "Christian theocracy," which they think unlawfully establishes a church or religion.
Oh, by the way, the freedoms of the Jewish race and religion are currently protected under the US constitution. It's called democracy. My hope is to keep it that way.
"You shall have no other gods." God
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Jesus
I've long said that the US Constitution was a truce between Deism and Conventional Christianity, tolerating one another in the interests of peace. It has worked to a limited degree. Slavery wasn't "Christian," although it was done in the name of Christianity. That was "taking the Lord's name in vain." And slavery almost destroyed the US.
As more and more religious expression has taken advantage of Constitutional guarantees of religious liberty, the country has grown more conflicted, morally, spiritually, and religiously. In the end, I expect ever more severe differences and conflicts.
-
"Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State."[/i]
What makes you think it is your place to make this condescending statement concerning the Jews on behalf of Christians?
Honestly, your incessant going on about theocracy is either based upon a perverse, non-Christian attitude concerning the Children of Israel or you are a reckless poster who talks too much.
When called or challenged on any of your questionable statements you resort to shape-shifting, rambling and evermore talking.
Again, when advised to quote scripture in support of your views, your response is simply to state your opinion on what the bible says on any topic. You will not or cannot uphold your views with contextual scripture. Your eventual citing of verses referencing Babylon amounted to accusations against the Jews and were in no way relevant to the topic of the current Jewish Diaspora and suggested ominous motives where it concerns your affection for a theocracy.
At the least, you are not careful about what you post and perhaps even less careful about what you believe and testify to.
You have made statements recently to the effect that you have been mistreated while the real problem has been your snide, reckless remarks, and sweeping, untested theological machinations.
I am not a moderator but would nevertheless recommend that you slow it down and be very thoughtful about what you are stating.
-
"Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State."[/i]
What makes you think it is your place to make this condescending statement concerning the Jews on behalf of Christians?
I'm stating my view that Christians through the centuries have believed the Bible when it said that Jews were exiled as a punishment for their sins. I'm certainly not trying to represent *all* Christians.
Honestly, your incessant going on about theocracy is either based upon a perverse, non-Christian attitude concerning the Children of Israel or you are a reckless poster who talks too much.
I guess you have trouble handling the views of others, even when they are based on the truth of God's word?
When called or challenged on any of your questionable statements you resort to shape-shifting, rambling and evermore talking.
Ditto.
Again, when advised to quote scripture in support of your views, your response is simply to state your opinion on what the bible says on any topic. You will not or cannot uphold your views with contextual scripture. Your eventual citing of verses referencing Babylon amounted to accusations against the Jews and were in no way relevant to the topic of the current Jewish Diaspora and suggested ominous motives where it concerns your affection for a theocracy.
I don't need to repeat the arguments. You heard them.
At the least, you are not careful about what you post and perhaps even less careful about what you believe and testify to.
You have made statements recently to the effect that you have been mistreated while the real problem has been your snide, reckless remarks, and sweeping, untested theological machinations.
I am not a moderator but would nevertheless recommend that you slow it down and be very thoughtful about what you are stating.
Goading the administrator to censor me? That's hardly a respectable debate or discussion. I don't hear a single response to any of the arguments I made--just personal attack.
-
From Deut 28, one the scariest chapters of the Scriptures.
64 “And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.
65 And among these nations you shall find no respite, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot, but the LORD will give you there a trembling heart and failing eyes and a languishing soul.
66 Your life shall hang in doubt before you. Night and day you shall be in dread and have no assurance of your life.
67 In the morning you shall say, ‘If only it were evening!’ and at evening you shall say, ‘If only it were morning!’ because of the dread that your heart shall feel, and the sights that your eyes shall see.
68 And the LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer.”
While it's generally believed Deut 28 is linked to the Babylon capacity it's also compatible to a large extend with the Jewish history from AD 70 till today peeking during the Holocaust.
-
From Deut 28, one the scariest chapters of the Scriptures.
64 “And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.
65 And among these nations you shall find no respite, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot, but the LORD will give you there a trembling heart and failing eyes and a languishing soul.
66 Your life shall hang in doubt before you. Night and day you shall be in dread and have no assurance of your life.
67 In the morning you shall say, ‘If only it were evening!’ and at evening you shall say, ‘If only it were morning!’ because of the dread that your heart shall feel, and the sights that your eyes shall see.
68 And the LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer.”
While it's generally believed Deut 28 is linked to the Babylon capacity it's also compatible to a large extend with the Jewish history from AD 70 till today peeking during the Holocaust.
Thank you. It needs to be said. And it has nothing at all to do with hate for the Jews. God's anger towards the Jews could be assuaged and would abate. God's patience, mercy, and kindness are infinite. However, ours are not.
-
Let's bring this back into focus. I said:
"Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State."
This point reminds me of a thought I heard from Rabbi Kushner. He relays the following exchange-
I was once asked at a public lecture: "Doesn't the history of the Jews wandering and low status prove that they are being cursed for rejecting Jesus?
I answered, "No, not at all, because the people who predicted that the Jews would suffer are the same people who persecuted them. It would be as if I predicted that a window would break, and then threw a rock at it. That would say more about my propensity for violence than my gift of prophecy".
-
While it's generally believed Deut 28 is linked to the Babylon capacity it's also compatible to a large extend with the Jewish history from AD 70 till today peeking during the Holocaust.
It certainly is. That doesn't mean that Christians should take it upon themselves to "fulfill" the bible's prophecies by heaping suffering on the Jews. And yet, for so much of Christian history, many Christians have done just that. RandyPNW, here, thinks that it's some kind of religious obligation. Another awesome quote of his (and he's building quite the library here)
God's anger towards the Jews could be assuaged and would abate. God's patience, mercy, and kindness are infinite. However, ours are not.
So he justifies Jewish suffering at the hands of Christians because the Jews obviously deserve it. Obviously.
I can't think of a less Christian message. But them, I am not a Christian. So that's up for you guys to decide.
-
From Deut 28, one the scariest chapters of the Scriptures.
64 “And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.
65 And among these nations you shall find no respite, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot, but the LORD will give you there a trembling heart and failing eyes and a languishing soul.
66 Your life shall hang in doubt before you. Night and day you shall be in dread and have no assurance of your life.
67 In the morning you shall say, ‘If only it were evening!’ and at evening you shall say, ‘If only it were morning!’ because of the dread that your heart shall feel, and the sights that your eyes shall see.
68 And the LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer.”
While it's generally believed Deut 28 is linked to the Babylon capacity it's also compatible to a large extend with the Jewish history from AD 70 till today peeking during the Holocaust.
Thank you. It needs to be said. And it has nothing at all to do with hate for the Jews. God's anger towards the Jews could be assuaged and would abate. God's patience, mercy, and kindness are infinite. However, ours are not.
I don't understand the part I colored red.
Look at Deut 28:63 - And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you.
The Lord taking delight in destruction? That's even more harsh than Gen 6:7
The Lord has unfinished business with Israel (Romans 11), not our business, it's between God and Israel, we as historic main prosecutors are the last ones to judge them.
-
It begs the question: why have Jews exhausted 'our' patience, mercy and kindness?
-
They haven’t
If we love Jesus
If we live Jesus
-
It begs the question: why have Jews exhausted 'our' patience, mercy and kindness?
I'm confessing that Christianity is less patient than God. Many, many Christians down through the centuries grew impatient with the Jewish People because they did not convert to Christianity.
In fact, Replacement Theology came into existence precisely because of that reason. Christians thought that if the Jewish People never repent, "Israel" must be a name actually applying to the Church. Otherwise, prophecy cannot be fulfilled that had to do with Israel's final salvation.
Our Bible positively states that the generation of Jesus began a punishment from God upon the Jews that will last throughout the NT age. But that doesn't mean the Jewish people cannot free themselves from the problems that initially contributed to their national punishment. Paul said that only a "remnant" succeeds in doing this, however.
God set in motion a "punishment" upon Israel, not necessarily implicating all generations of Jews, but largely, the generation in which the punishment was put into motion. Following generations paid a price for this. The antagonism initiated by the Jewish People against Christ cannot be fully exterminated apart from a complete repentance from the part of the Jewish Religion that contained this.
I'm advocating for leniency towards the Jewish People. I just know that realistically, the same old hostility between Jew and Christian will continue. For God, it has nothing to do with bigotry--He is patient with all, desiring repentance, but without which there can only be punishment.
The Christian Peoples have the same problem as the Jewish People. Having known God, they sinned in the knowledge of what sin was, and incur a greater punishment. European Civilization has suffered a great number of disasters, including plagues and wars. What was God's "justice" towards the Jew is the same "justice" towards the Christian.
I would also advocate for leniency for the Christian. If he repents of his sins against others and against God Himself, they can be forgiven and restored. The same for the Jewish People. Israel will be restored in the end.
-
From Deut 28, one the scariest chapters of the Scriptures.
64 “And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.
65 And among these nations you shall find no respite, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot, but the LORD will give you there a trembling heart and failing eyes and a languishing soul.
66 Your life shall hang in doubt before you. Night and day you shall be in dread and have no assurance of your life.
67 In the morning you shall say, ‘If only it were evening!’ and at evening you shall say, ‘If only it were morning!’ because of the dread that your heart shall feel, and the sights that your eyes shall see.
68 And the LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer.”
While it's generally believed Deut 28 is linked to the Babylon capacity it's also compatible to a large extend with the Jewish history from AD 70 till today peeking during the Holocaust.
Thank you. It needs to be said. And it has nothing at all to do with hate for the Jews. God's anger towards the Jews could be assuaged and would abate. God's patience, mercy, and kindness are infinite. However, ours are not.
I don't understand the part I colored red.
Look at Deut 28:63 - And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you.
The Lord taking delight in destruction? That's even more harsh than Gen 6:7
The Lord has unfinished business with Israel (Romans 11), not our business, it's between God and Israel, we as historic main prosecutors are the last ones to judge them.
God is harsh towards the recalcitrant, but merciful towards those willing to soften their hearts. Even when an entire society is engulfed in group think of a bad kind, and believe in license to do immoral things and behave wickedly towards minorities, God can have mercy on the few who do not sanction such things, who do not wish to act like this.
The Jewish nation is nothing but a model for all nations of the world. They were given a theocracy, a covenant relationship with God, including a Law to live by. And the majority ultimately capitulated to human selfishness.
This is an example to Christian nations who have entered into a covenant relationship with God through Christ. But these same peoples also capitulated to humanism, and to tolerance towards aberrant lifestyles.
In the end there will be judgment. But the few who repent or remain aloof from such sinful activities will be forgiven and restored.
-
I'm confessing that Christianity is less patient than God. Many, many Christians down through the centuries grew impatient with the Jewish People because they did not convert to Christianity.
I'm not following. Are you saying that Christians through the centuries have greatly sinned against the Jewish people, or that God has used Christians to punish the Jewish people for their - that is, the Jews - obstinance?
I'm having difficulty understanding how any of what you said answers my questions. Why are Christians in a position such that they're acting against Jews, who have exhausted the patience, kindness, mercy, etc. of Christians? It sounds to me like a convenient way to excuse the egregious sins of Christians against Jews over the millennia.
-
I'm confessing that Christianity is less patient than God. Many, many Christians down through the centuries grew impatient with the Jewish People because they did not convert to Christianity.
I'm not following. Are you saying that Christians through the centuries have greatly sinned against the Jewish people, or that God has used Christians to punish the Jewish people for their - that is, the Jews - obstinance?
I'm saying that Christians have not been as patient as God would have them to be. We should be more understanding of what the Jews have gone through as Christians, because we should be self-aware of our own sins. Having received grace we should be willing to give it. And having been judged harshly, at times, as God's People, we should know what it's like for Jews to be God's People and have to undergo God's disciplines.
-
The Jewish nation is nothing but a model for all nations of the world. They were given a theocracy, a covenant relationship with God, including a Law to live by. And the majority ultimately capitulated to human selfishness.
The Biblical truth is that Israel is in a state of unbelief, having rejected Christ.
"Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." Rm 11:20,21
"And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again." Rm11:23
This is an example to Christian nations who have entered into a covenant relationship with God through Christ.
Not trying to be picky but there are no Christian nations who have entered into a covenant relationship with God through Christ. Israel is God's nation; there are no others. God currently inhabits the Church, which resides in all nations, even the geographical, political nation of Israel.
You speak of nations having covenant relationships with God through Christ. No such thing exists and so important.
Christ, who is God, inhabits the Church through and by the faith of individual believers, Jews and Gentiles alike.
-
I'm confessing that Christianity is less patient than God. Many, many Christians down through the centuries grew impatient with the Jewish People because they did not convert to Christianity.
I'm not following. Are you saying that Christians through the centuries have greatly sinned against the Jewish people, or that God has used Christians to punish the Jewish people for their - that is, the Jews - obstinance?
I'm saying that Christians have not been as patient as God would have them to be.
So, when you said : God's patience, mercy, and kindness are infinite. However, ours are not. you were speaking about Christianity and it was not your personal stance? It certainly read as such. But then I am not a native English speaker.
-
I'm confessing that Christianity is less patient than God. Many, many Christians down through the centuries grew impatient with the Jewish People because they did not convert to Christianity.
I'm not following. Are you saying that Christians through the centuries have greatly sinned against the Jewish people, or that God has used Christians to punish the Jewish people for their - that is, the Jews - obstinance?
I'm saying that Christians have not been as patient as God would have them to be.
So, when you said : God's patience, mercy, and kindness are infinite. However, ours are not. you were speaking about Christianity and it was not your personal stance? It certainly read as such. But then I am not a native English speaker.
It was incredibly poorly phrased.
-
There's something else of note in this whole Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The singling out of the state of Israel.
The media and American politicians has been criticizing Israel for "not doing enough" to help the Ukraine.
For example, Israel has stated that they would take every single Jewish refugee that wanted to come (that is Israel's raison detre after all) plus an additional 25,000 non-Jewish refugees. This has led to much talk of Israel being "racist" for excluding non Jews. When this talk first started, no country that was not bordering the Ukraine was taking any refugees. The UK took 50. 50!! The United States has accepted less than 700. But tiny Israel is racist for taking only 25,000.
And talk about Israel being a "bad ally". Outright lies that Israel has not condemned Russia (they have) or that they were slow to adopt sanctions against Russia (which they were, initially, and the reason is very obvious: Syria. Obama's in action in the middle east allowed Russia to establish a considerable presence in Syria; and when Israel interdicts Iranian aid to Hizbullah, they need tacit Russian permission to do so. So they have a balancing act to perform). And the US is being a bad ally to Israel (and the Saudis and the Gulf States too) by working on a nuclear deal with Iran, being mediated by (of all people) the Russians! The deal would give Iran $100 billion in cash, take all of Iranian terrorists off sanction lists, including the mastermind of the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut (killing 241 US service members) and the planner of the Jewish center bombing in Argentina (killing 85) AND give them a clear pathway to nuclear weapons.
There really is no explanation for this aside from good old fashioned Jew hatred.
-
Well, you know.... Joooooooooooos.
I never cease to be amazed at the "spin doctors" and their insistence that the equation "x = any historically oppressed people group, except Jews" whenever they want to play either the victim or oppressor game.
Seriously, you can't tell the players without a scorecard.
History, reality, logic... all go out the window. Israel is damned if they do, damned if they don't.
-
I'm reminded of a thought by Sigmund Freud.
"As far as anti-Semitism is concerned, I don't really want to go searching for explanations for it; I have a very strong tendency to surrender to my emotions on this matter, and I find that I have received confirmation for my totally unscientific belief that humanity is for the most part quite a pathetic and miserable rabble".