Gog's endtime construction?

[RandyPNW]

Sometimes, when we start arguing in the potential philosophy outside of actual Scripture— or even within our biases as to Scripture-  we fail to understand the exact nature of the struggle.  How often we fail to see the dividing line.  How often we fail to understand that until we promote the positive aspects of our proposals instead of merely attacking the perceived negatives of our opponents, that our efforts are likely mediocre at best.  Said another way…

“Any philosophy, whether of a religious or political nature - and sometimes the dividing line is hard to determine - fights less for the negative destruction of the opposing ideology than for the positive promotion of its own. Hence its struggle is less defensive than offensive. It therefore has the advantage even in determining the goal, since this goal represents the victory of its own idea, while, conversely,it is hard to determine when the negative aim of the destruction of a hostile doctrine may be regarded as achieved and assured. For this reason alone, the philosophy's offensive will be more systematic and also more powerful than the defensive against a philosophy, since here, too, as always, the attack and not the defence makes the decision. The fight against a spiritual power with methods of violence remains defensive, however, until the sword becomes the support,the herald and disseminator, of a new spiritual doctrine.”

Does that make sense?  Can we at least agree with this?

I think I know what you're saying. I'll assume I do, and you can correct me if I miss the mark. In my personal life have unending stress, to some degree, and absolutely zero in on the negative more than a positive. Although I've never had trouble making friends, I largely choose to reduce my friends to a minimum, basically because I'm an unhappy person. The conflict in me is that at the same time I love people I hate them--I know--not a very Christian thing!

We sometimes have to accept where we are because God does. I wish I could be a positive person instead of a negative nelly. But we can only be who we are until God heals us and changes us for the better--I do believe we change. Only part of it involves the will--some of it is well beyond our ability to change without God's transforming power, working gradually in our lives.

Take for example Sampson. He was a greater man than is often understood. And yet he is looked at in terms of his weaknesses, and he suffered greatly for his weakness. Many forget the fact he acted as a judge in Israel for decades--they only see him literally blinded by Delilah, and view him as worse than David who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed.

But in Sampson's death he won a greater victory than he had in his life. This great act of contrition and grace enabled him to do something greater than he had ever done before.

But note how grace took effect. It was not immediate. Sampson's weaknesses had remained with him for many years, from the time he married a foreign woman until he met up with Delilah.

Well, the healing took place more quickly, but also gradually. The Scriptures say he gradually regained his hair, along with his vow. And when he was recovered, he remained blind, because his carnality could not really be healed. But his commitment could over-ride his weakness and carnal inclinations.

This is how I see myself, as incapable of being as positive as I'd like. But grace is able to keep me going, even when it seems I accomplish nothing at all, due to all of the negativity.

Still, I can only follow Scriptures the best I can, even with my shortcomings. The Scriptures say don't befriend the world, don't even love family more than God. And we should accept the Scriptures whole, which contain a lot more judgment than salvation and blessing.

So am I in the ballpark, or have I struck out?

[RabbiKnife]

All of my previous post are direct quotes from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf

His arguments for a Christian theocracy that destroyed the Jews.  We can all make the Bible say anything we want it to say in support of our biases and use philosophy as a buttress

[Athanasius]

I don't know why you're threatening me--I have zero interest in pursuing this, and never did. The ones who have kept this going are those who are demanding an apology out of me.

The hint is in the grammatical tense: it's a predictive utterance. If your hope is to impact Fenris in such a way that he comes to know Christ (for instance), but you write in such a way that a lack of love for Fenris is conveyed, then you will only ever argue with each other, and Fenris will never find anything you have to say compelling. Likewise, you won't find anything he has to say compelling. The relationship essentially becomes one of antagonism. In this circumstance, that antagonism would be framed by one side holding to the perception that it's speaking the obvious truth, which the other side doesn't know, while the other side will maintain that the truth is indeed known, and insensitivity betrays a lack of love.

[RandyPNW]

I don't know why you're threatening me--I have zero interest in pursuing this, and never did. The ones who have kept this going are those who are demanding an apology out of me.

The hint is in the grammatical tense: it's a predictive utterance. If your hope is to impact Fenris in such a way that he comes to know Christ (for instance), but you write in such a way that a lack of love for Fenris is conveyed, then you will only ever argue with each other, and Fenris will never find anything you have to say compelling. Likewise, you won't find anything he has to say compelling. The relationship essentially becomes one of antagonism. In this circumstance, that antagonism would be framed by one side holding to the perception that it's speaking the obvious truth, which the other side doesn't know, while the other side will maintain that the truth is indeed known, and insensitivity betrays a lack of love.

I understand and agree. However, at some point a person has already decided to reject Christ, no matter how compelling the argument, no matter how loving the person. And that's fine--people are entitled to decide for the religion they wish to live for.

But believing, as we do, that Christ is the only way, those who reject him may reject him either because they remain unconvinced or because they simply reject the offer, even if offered by Christ himself. These both John the Baptist and Jesus rejected as unworthy of the Kingdom of God.

I don't wish to judge someone's heart in this matter, but do recognize when there is antagonism towards the Christian proposal. At that point I can either continue to discuss issues or not. If the person I discuss these things with is hostile, then there is no interest on my part for discussing things any more.

I don't dislike anybody on this forum. And I'm fine when people mock, in a friendly way, my views on things like a Christian theocracy, the Sin Nature, or the like. But I have no interest in conversations where my positions become an opportunity for depicting me as a bigot.

At the very least, the position should be discussed and questioned. But when there is no interest other than depicting me as a bigot, then there is no more "love" I can give such a person. Neither would they want to "love" a person they think is a bigot.

[RandyPNW]

All of my previous post are direct quotes from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf

His arguments for a Christian theocracy that destroyed the Jews.  We can all make the Bible say anything we want it to say in support of our biases and use philosophy as a buttress

Yes, it was a bit difficult to determine what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting a more *positive* approach in evangelism. How far off course could I be?

I often get attacked for being too negative, or not indulging enough in "group think." After all, pals support pals, right?

But my interest is exclusively in the truth. Friendship happens or not apart from truth telling.

I had Mein Kampf, but threw it away... To me it would be like indulging in the occult.

[Athanasius]

I understand and agree. However, at some point a person has already decided to reject Christ, no matter how compelling the argument, no matter how loving the person. And that's fine--people are entitled to decide for the religion they wish to live for.

But believing, as we do, that Christ is the only way, those who reject him may reject him either because they remain unconvinced or because they simply reject the offer, even if offered by Christ himself. These both John the Baptist and Jesus rejected as unworthy of the Kingdom of God.

I don't wish to judge someone's heart in this matter...

Quite right, we shouldn't judge such matters and we aren't in a position to judge.

It's easy to gloss over the reality that to reject Christ one must have knowledge of Christ, and we Christians are just arrogant enough to think that our every presentation of Christ is in fact of presentation of Christ. But this is not assured, and there are plenty of so-called Christians who present an unrecognisable Christ, or claim Christ while acting in ways inconsistent with the claim "I believe in Jesus".

Or it could be that a person has been so hurt by those within the church that Christ was never on offer, so what's really being rejected? And I don't know about you, but I'm neither John the Baptist nor Jesus. To even speak about worthiness, as in, being worthy of the Kingdom of God. Well, let me get to the back of the line and dwell on that one.

Actually, that reminds me of a song. There's a refrain that goes:

The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you alone
Remember me
Remember me
Remember me

My Chemical Romance. There are plenty of outright worship songs with similar lines but I don't know, that one gets me. How do even I know my faith is pure and orientated towards God? Going back a thought, I think the difference is "us" and "I" language. The more I think about that the more existential it gets.

but do recognize when there is antagonism towards the Christian proposal. At that point I can either continue to discuss issues or not. If the person I discuss these things with is hostile, then there is no interest on my part for discussing things any more.

Sure, but I'd really hesitate to categorise Fenris as antagonistic towards "the Christian proposal", which I'm assuming is the Gospel, and not our own ideas of things, like the "theocracy" - in keeping with your special definition - you put forward.

I don't dislike anybody on this forum. And I'm fine when people mock, in a friendly way, my views on things like a Christian theocracy, the Sin Nature, or the like. But I have no interest in conversations where my positions become an opportunity for depicting me as a bigot.

As I was saying, we only know each other through what we write. This is missiology, or communication 100: what's intended is not always what's understood. Fenris didn't say what he said arbitrarily, and not without warrant. This is perhaps an opportunity to think on why such a thing could be said of what you've written.

[RandyPNW]

Quite right, we shouldn't judge such matters and we aren't in a position to judge.

It's easy to gloss over the reality that to reject Christ one must have knowledge of Christ, and we Christians are just arrogant enough to think that our every presentation of Christ is in fact of presentation of Christ. But this is not assured, and there are plenty of so-called Christians who present an unrecognisable Christ, or claim Christ while acting in ways inconsistent with the claim "I believe in Jesus".

Or it could be that a person has been so hurt by those within the church that Christ was never on offer, so what's really being rejected? And I don't know about you, but I'm neither John the Baptist nor Jesus. To even speak about worthiness, as in, being worthy of the Kingdom of God. Well, let me get to the back of the line and dwell on that one.

Actually, that reminds me of a song. There's a refrain that goes:

The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you
The only hope for me is you alone
Remember me
Remember me
Remember me

My Chemical Romance. There are plenty of outright worship songs with similar lines but I don't know, that one gets me. How do even I know my faith is pure and orientated towards God? Going back a thought, I think the difference is "us" and "I" language. The more I think about that the more existential it gets.

Yes, catchy tune and I'm sure some deep-felt experience involved in that. Music really touches me too. Music has been big in my growing up family, both my father and brother being musicians on top of their regular jobs. My own unique talent was listening to the music, and loving to learn the words.

But yes, I'm not John the Baptist, nor Jesus--just like you. That being said, at some point we hopefully get lined up enough with God and mature enough that we can make sound judgments about people without losing our sense of who we are, and aren't.

Sure, but I'd really hesitate to categorise Fenris as antagonistic towards "the Christian proposal", which I'm assuming is the Gospel, and not our own ideas of things, like the "theocracy" - in keeping with your special definition - you put forward.

That's true. I try not to confuse my own personal message with the message of the Gospel. I just hope that somehow *some* of the Gospel message is contained in my beliefs, because I really do try to tailor my beliefs and statements after the Scriptures.

As I was saying, we only know each other through what we write. This is missiology, or communication 100: what's intended is not always what's understood. Fenris didn't say what he said arbitrarily, and not without warrant. This is perhaps an opportunity to think on why such a thing could be said of what you've written.

But here's the thing, brother. Just because someone hears what he does from you, and draws negative thoughts about that, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand, doesn't mean he doesn't either intentionally or subconsciously confuse the subject matter in order to demonize the one he wishes to reject.

Again, we can't often be legit judges on these matters, but since people can be evil, it bears noting that getting hostile with what you say does not automatically mean the person "misunderstands."

But thanks--lots of things I agree with. I'll talk again with Fenris if he surrenders his "attack" mode, instead of me trying to make things sound better for him. At some point he has to accept that people believe what they will, and if he doesn't like it, then he doesn't have to talk with them.

On a more positive note, my daughter, who has refused to talk with me for 6 months, actually called and talked with me for over an hour tonight. I'm in 7th heaven! She had to state honestly what she felt about my manners, and I was completely accepting--I didn't want to lose her.

I'll bend over backwards if it will help somebody. I just can't lie to make them feel better. I have to say what I think.

[RabbiKnife]

All of my previous post are direct quotes from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf

His arguments for a Christian theocracy that destroyed the Jews.  We can all make the Bible say anything we want it to say in support of our biases and use philosophy as a buttress

Yes, it was a bit difficult to determine what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting a more *positive* approach in evangelism. How far off course could I be?

I often get attacked for being too negative, or not indulging enough in "group think." After all, pals support pals, right?

But my interest is exclusively in the truth. Friendship happens or not apart from truth telling.

I had Mein Kampf, but threw it away... To me it would be like indulging in the occult.

Yeah you completely missed the point

The point was to demonstrate that humans of all kinds … both the most benevolent and the most malevolent… often claim the authority of God in support if their twisted ideas of utopian theocracy…

Mein Kampf is a window  into the mind of pure evil…. It is important that we never forget the subtleties of satan

[RandyPNW]

All of my previous post are direct quotes from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf

His arguments for a Christian theocracy that destroyed the Jews.  We can all make the Bible say anything we want it to say in support of our biases and use philosophy as a buttress

Yes, it was a bit difficult to determine what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting a more *positive* approach in evangelism. How far off course could I be?

I often get attacked for being too negative, or not indulging enough in "group think." After all, pals support pals, right?

But my interest is exclusively in the truth. Friendship happens or not apart from truth telling.

I had Mein Kampf, but threw it away... To me it would be like indulging in the occult.

Yeah you completely missed the point

The point was to demonstrate that humans of all kinds … both the most benevolent and the most malevolent… often claim the authority of God in support if their twisted ideas of utopian theocracy…

Mein Kampf is a window  into the mind of pure evil…. It is important that we never forget the subtleties of satan

Point taken. Taken on its face there was a certain amount of rationale to it, and you didn't cite, from the onset, who the quote was from--I thought it was from you.

But in the hands of a corrupt individual like Hitler, the most rational of statements is an attempt to mislead. I understand that.

Next time, will you please give proper credits to your quote so that I'm not misled? Thanks. I don't want to be in the position of giving any validity to something Hitler said.

As I said I had Mein Kampf. I started reading it because I wanted to understand his demented thinking. But I couldn't stomach it, and threw it away. No matter how he was raised, I could never justify what he did or what he believed.

[Athanasius]

But here's the thing, brother. Just because someone hears what he does from you, and draws negative thoughts about that, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand, doesn't mean he doesn't either intentionally or subconsciously confuse the subject matter in order to demonize the one he wishes to reject.

Again, we can't often be legit judges on these matters, but since people can be evil, it bears noting that getting hostile with what you say does not automatically mean the person "misunderstands."

But thanks--lots of things I agree with. I'll talk again with Fenris if he surrenders his "attack" mode, instead of me trying to make things sound better for him. At some point he has to accept that people believe what they will, and if he doesn't like it, then he doesn't have to talk with them.

Maybe eventually you'll understand that you haven't been demonised, and Fenris, myself, and others, are doing nothing more than replying to the words you're writing and the ideas you're conveying insofar as both betray an idea of the person behind the screen.

I don't know that I look very brotherly these days.

[RandyPNW]

But here's the thing, brother. Just because someone hears what he does from you, and draws negative thoughts about that, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand, doesn't mean he doesn't either intentionally or subconsciously confuse the subject matter in order to demonize the one he wishes to reject.

Again, we can't often be legit judges on these matters, but since people can be evil, it bears noting that getting hostile with what you say does not automatically mean the person "misunderstands."

But thanks--lots of things I agree with. I'll talk again with Fenris if he surrenders his "attack" mode, instead of me trying to make things sound better for him. At some point he has to accept that people believe what they will, and if he doesn't like it, then he doesn't have to talk with them.

Maybe eventually you'll understand that you haven't been demonised, and Fenris, myself, and others, are doing nothing more than replying to the words you're writing and the ideas you're conveying insofar as both betray an idea of the person behind the screen.

I don't know that I look very brotherly these days.

I consider you a brother. Fenris, I don't. But I have called him a "friend," though that relationship is now pretty tenuous.

I think it's fantastic when people of different religions get along. But I'm realistic about it.

When a belief system clashes with another, sometimes emotions run high. The baggage connected to Jews in their relations with Christians is extensive. I understand that.

[Fenris]

Sure, but I'd really hesitate to categorise Fenris as antagonistic towards "the Christian proposal", which I'm assuming is the Gospel,

I am not, in fact, hostile to Christianity. It took a barbaric and pagan continent and turned it into a land of ethical monotheists. This is obviously a Good Thing.

That doesn't make it "true", or "correct". But I'm capable of recognizing that something can be good, and even from God, even if it does not conform to my belief system.

and not our own ideas of things, like the "theocracy" - in keeping with your special definition - you put forward.

This is a Bad Thing and I oppose it wholeheartedly, as any person of conscience should. Again, man is fallen and should not be trusted to force their beliefs on others.

[Fenris]

The baggage connected to Jews in their relations with Christians is extensive. I understand that.

"The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll.”

— Benjamin Disraeli

[Athanasius]

I consider you a brother...

I know, what I mea... ah, nevermind.