View Full Version : We Need To Do Better
Some comments in the VA elections 2019 thread got me thinking: Leftists have turned or are making serious strides toward turning CO, VA, AZ, blue. They’re doing very well in areas where they previously weren’t just a decade ago. Why? I appreciate your analysis.
One component I believe is that our messengers, i.e. our media personalities, keeping falling for social policy traps set for us. The LGBTQ stuff . . . . the only proper response, and the response that takes sound-bytes away from leftist propagandists, is WHO CARES. Gays and Trannies are a very small percentage of the population, and I believe that a vast majority of Americans care exponentially more about their taxes, their wellness, their rights, their safety, deficit spending, literally any other issue, where traditionally conservatives and libertarians have the better ideas and arguments. But every time some dolt with a public platform goes on a tirade for an hour about what we’re supposed to call trannies, what bathroom they’re gonna use, And how many genders there are, the leftists make us look like bigots and idiots. We become evil caricatures rather than reasonable people worth listening to. Then, whereas some moderate voters might have listened to our leaders regarding tax policy, they tune them out due to having an intolerant stance on f#cking trannies. Trannies of all things. Trannies cost us a vote. Trannies.
Is THAT the hill we want to die on? Some-odd 15-30 millions LGBTQ peoples’ rights? We’re going to hitch the whole liberty movement on that sh*t??? Come on. We can’t play their game. We need to see these issues as traps, as trivial nonsense, and we need to stick to the MAIN IDEAS that mostly everyone cares about. We need to do better. Our arguments are sound, our ideas are proven winners, theirs are proven losers. This should be a f#cking cake walk. But they are GAINING ground. And I can’t help but think it’s partly because we play along with their caricature of us.
What are some other things besides shutting the hell up about unimportant silly issues that we might be able to do to begin winning hearts and minds again?
Some comments in the VA elections 2019 thread got me thinking: Leftists have turned or are making serious strides toward turning CO, VA, AZ, blue. They’re doing very well in areas where they previously weren’t just a decade ago. Why? I appreciate your analysis.
One component I believe is that our messengers, i.e. our media personalities, keeping falling for social policy traps set for us. The LGBTQ stuff . . . . the only proper response, and the response that takes sound-bytes away from leftist propagandists, is WHO CARES. Gays and Trannies are a very small percentage of the population, and I believe that a vast majority of Americans care exponentially more about their taxes, their wellness, their rights, their safety, deficit spending, literally any other issue, where traditionally conservatives and libertarians have the better ideas and arguments. But every time some dolt with a public platform goes on a tirade for an hour about what we’re supposed to call trannies, what bathroom they’re gonna use, And how many genders there are, the leftists make us look like bigots and idiots. We become evil caricatures rather than reasonable people worth listening to. Then, whereas some moderate voters might have listened to our leaders regarding tax policy, they tune them out due to having an intolerant stance on f#cking trannies. Trannies of all things. Trannies cost us a vote. Trannies.
Is THAT the hill we want to die on? Some-odd 15-30 millions LGBTQ peoples’ rights? We’re going to hitch the whole liberty movement on that sh*t??? Come on. We can’t play their game. We need to see these issues as traps, as trivial nonsense, and we need to stick to the MAIN IDEAS that mostly everyone cares about. We need to do better. Our arguments are sound, our ideas are proven winners, theirs are proven losers. This should be a f#cking cake walk. But they are GAINING ground. And I can’t help but think it’s partly because we play along with their caricature of us.
What are some other things besides shutting the hell up about unimportant silly issues that we might be able to do to begin winning hearts and minds again?
Pretty sure all those people have the same rights as everybody else already.
It’s about lies and messaging.
The left markets the Baker HAS to bake the cake for the tranny wedding despite it violating his religious beliefs. The left hates religion and doesn’t believe that’s an adequate response to the dilemma.
The left states some groups are “more equal”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would not make a bit of difference. There are a couple of dozen issues we disagree on and you could make the same case for each. What, should we compromise or give up every issue to appease the left? Do you truly believe that appeasing them on only one issue, or even all issues will get then to support 2A rights?
The left is taking the lazy path. Tolerance for every deviation and wrath at anything that requires self discipline and responsibility. Over time more and more people gravitate to that. Less thinking and more demanding and less accountability.
This is why great civilizations die. Once greatness is achieved then people start looking for the easy way. Get others to pay. Don’t enforce laws. More free stuff. Laziness begets more laziness.
There is no self-correcting mechanism in the average human nature. Once we disallow in social discussion any talk of God or any ultimate set of boundaries, then it is easy to keep sliding the acceptable behavior and towards more and more chaos and less productivity. If the ultimate law rests entirely on man’s choice, then he will always choose worse and worse as a group. Until some outside force disrupts them so much they have to strip down to object survival and accept there are external forces and rules beyond man.
I believe we passed the tipping point some time ago. We can try to slow the downward social slide but ultimately human nature wants to devolve into corruption and savagery.
Some comments in the VA elections 2019 thread got me thinking: Leftists have turned or are making serious strides toward turning CO, VA, AZ, blue. They’re doing very well in areas where they previously weren’t just a decade ago. Why? I appreciate your analysis.
One component I believe is that our messengers, i.e. our media personalities, keeping falling for social policy traps set for us. The LGBTQ stuff . . . . the only proper response, and the response that takes sound-bytes away from leftist propagandists, is WHO CARES. Gays and Trannies are a very small percentage of the population, and I believe that a vast majority of Americans care exponentially more about their taxes, their wellness, their rights, their safety, deficit spending, literally any other issue, where traditionally conservatives and libertarians have the better ideas and arguments. But every time some dolt with a public platform goes on a tirade for an hour about what we’re supposed to call trannies, what bathroom they’re gonna use, And how many genders there are, the leftists make us look like bigots and idiots. We become evil caricatures rather than reasonable people worth listening to. Then, whereas some moderate voters might have listened to our leaders regarding tax policy, they tune them out due to having an intolerant stance on f#cking trannies. Trannies of all things. Trannies cost us a vote. Trannies.
Is THAT the hill we want to die on? Some-odd 15-30 millions LGBTQ peoples’ rights? We’re going to hitch the whole liberty movement on that sh*t??? Come on. We can’t play their game. We need to see these issues as traps, as trivial nonsense, and we need to stick to the MAIN IDEAS that mostly everyone cares about. We need to do better. Our arguments are sound, our ideas are proven winners, theirs are proven losers. This should be a f#cking cake walk. But they are GAINING ground. And I can’t help but think it’s partly because we play along with their caricature of us.
What are some other things besides shutting the hell up about unimportant silly issues that we might be able to do to begin winning hearts and minds again?
Not going to acquiesce to libertarian policies, I would have to renounce my religion first so I could be consistent. Not happening. Besides, I never put my trust in magistrates.
Not going to acquiesce to libertarian policies, I would have to renounce my religion first so I could be consistent. Not happening. Besides, I never put my trust in magistrates.
If you haven’t noticed the Bible thumping spiel doesn’t help matters either.
So said attitudes are part of the problem.
Want to make headway? Get government out of people’s lives, their marriages, and their homes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you haven’t noticed the Bible thumping spiel doesn’t help matters either.
So said attitudes are part of the problem.
Want to make headway? Get government out of people’s lives, their marriages, and their homes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spoken like a true reprobate there jp. I can tell by your charitable respond that ultimately we're enemies who happen to like shooting guns. And as difficult as it is, I couldn't do it with out God's grace, I'm to love and pray for you. And that's what I'll do along with thumping my Bible.
Amazingly, I didn't thump my Bible, but only spoke of religion in general. You on the other hand, thumped your atheism pretty hard. You just can't help yourself can you?
https://youtu.be/zgmg2VFX058 . This has helped me make some sense of what is going on with the Democrats
Spoken like a true reprobate there jp. I can tell by your charitable respond that ultimately we're enemies who happen to like shooting guns. And as difficult as it is, I couldn't do it with out God's grace, I'm to love and pray for you. And that's what I'll do along with thumping my Bible.
Amazingly, I didn't thump my Bible, but only spoke of religion in general. You on the other hand, thumped your atheism pretty hard. You just can't help yourself can you?
I get that his post was antagonistic and probably intended to push your buttons, but where is he promoting Atheism? By suggesting we should all be free to worship as we please without the involvement of the state?
If you haven’t noticed the Bible thumping spiel doesn’t help matters either.
So said attitudes are part of the problem.
Want to make headway? Get government out of people’s lives, their marriages, and their homes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Self-righteous Pharisees don’t mind Statism, so long as the State operates as a theocracy and sanctions their zealotry.
What are some other things besides shutting the hell up about unimportant silly issues that we might be able to do to begin winning hearts and minds again?
There’s nothing you can do. History moves in great cycles: civilizations appear, rise, reach an apogee, decline, and eventually collapse. This one will be no different.
Accept it and move on.
I get that his post was antagonistic and probably intended to push your buttons, but where is he promoting Atheism? By suggesting we should all be free to worship as we please without the involvement of the state?
I've interacted with ole' jp before and he's an atheist, that's what he believes in, that's his world view. So we can't have all that "Bible thumping" as a viable position, what would be the go to position for jp? That's right...atheism.
I don't agree with the notion that "we are free to worship as we please", that might be the position of a religious pluralist, but that sure ain't the position of God Almighty and His word. People died at His hands for practicing that form of idolarty. It would take too long for me to explain my views of God, and the state. But I will say this, God has a HUGE interest in the nature and function of the state...He is sovereign over every...single...thing. If you really want to know something about my view then when you have some time and are so inclined read Psalm 2 for instance and get back to me and we can talk.
It would not make a bit of difference. There are a couple of dozen issues we disagree on and you could make the same case for each. What, should we compromise or give up every issue to appease the left? Do you truly believe that appeasing them on only one issue, or even all issues will get then to support 2A rights?
The left is taking the lazy path. Tolerance for every deviation and wrath at anything that requires self discipline and responsibility. Over time more and more people gravitate to that. Less thinking and more demanding and less accountability.
This is why great civilizations die. Once greatness is achieved then people start looking for the easy way. Get others to pay. Don’t enforce laws. More free stuff. Laziness begets more laziness.
There is no self-correcting mechanism in the average human nature. Once we disallow in social discussion any talk of God or any ultimate set of boundaries, then it is easy to keep sliding the acceptable behavior and towards more and more chaos and less productivity. If the ultimate law rests entirely on man’s choice, then he will always choose worse and worse as a group. Until some outside force disrupts them so much they have to strip down to object survival and accept there are external forces and rules beyond man.
I believe we passed the tipping point some time ago. We can try to slow the downward social slide but ultimately human nature wants to devolve into corruption and savagery.
There’s nothing you can do. History moves in great cycles: civilizations appear, rise, reach an apogee, decline, and eventually collapse. This one will be no different.
Accept it and move on.
You all aren’t doing anything to help with my recent anxiety/ depression over these past few days, LoL.
Pilgrim: not appease the left, ATRACT moderates. Like I said, we have sound arguments and irrefutable ideas with proven track records. We just need to stay on topic and avoid these stupid hot button topics that are of zero consequence to most people.
I've interacted with ole' jp before and he's an atheist, that's what he believes in, that's his world view. So we can't have all that "Bible thumping" as a viable position, what would be the go to position for jp? That's right...atheism.
I don't agree with the notion that "we are free to worship as we please", that might be the position of a religious pluralist, but that sure ain't the position of God Almighty and His word. People died at His hands for practicing that form of idolarty. It would take too long for me to explain my views of God, and the state. But I will say this, God has a HUGE interest in the nature and function of the state...He is sovereign over every...single...thing. If you really want to know something about my view then when you have some time and are so inclined read Psalm 2 for instance and get back to me and we can talk.
Got it. Not a fan of this then, I suppose:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
MountainRaven
11-09-19, 21:39
Got it. Not a fan of this then, I suppose:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
He's mentioned before that he believes the Constitution was a mistake.
He's mentioned before that he believes the Constitution was a mistake.
I must've missed that. I'll not waste anymore time on it.
I've interacted with ole' jp before and he's an atheist, that's what he believes in, that's his world view. So we can't have all that "Bible thumping" as a viable position, what would be the go to position for jp? That's right...atheism.
I don't agree with the notion that "we are free to worship as we please", that might be the position of a religious pluralist, but that sure ain't the position of God Almighty and His word. People died at His hands for practicing that form of idolarty. It would take too long for me to explain my views of God, and the state. But I will say this, God has a HUGE interest in the nature and function of the state...He is sovereign over every...single...thing. If you really want to know something about my view then when you have some time and are so inclined read Psalm 2 for instance and get back to me and we can talk.
Respectfully, I’m just going to say it: folks like you are great at turning people away. You are theocrats, which is in direct conflict with how the founders set up this republic. Even though nearly all were Christian, they knew that a Christian theocracy was a terrible idea.
Can’t help but feel like these bullsh*t squabbles over gay wedding cakes and other such distractions are spearheaded by people like you. You’re doing damage to the cause of liberty, please try to see it. Your type are being played like a fiddle. A close-minded, nosey, preachy obnoxious fiddle. And then used as propaganda.
Please don’t be offended by any of this. I’m just trying to get my point across and if I said something insulting, that wasn’t my intent.
We need to give people we disagree with space to pursue happiness as they see fit, and stay over the REAL target: shrinking government.
Respectfully, I’m just going to say it: folks like you are great at turning people away. You are theocrats, which is in direct conflict with how the founders set up this republic. Even though nearly all were Christian, they knew that a Christian theocracy was a terrible idea.
Can’t help but feel like these bullsh*t squabbles over gay wedding cakes and other such distractions are spearheaded by people like you. You’re doing damage to the cause of liberty, please try to see it. Your type are being played like a fiddle. A close-minded, nosey, preachy obnoxious fiddle. And then used as propaganda.
Please don’t be offended by any of this. I’m just trying to get my point across and if I said something insulting, that wasn’t my intent.
We need to give people we disagree with space to pursue happiness as they see fit, and stay over the REAL target: shrinking government.
I’m hardly a theocrat. But anybody that thinks that the state should force private business transactions is the problem. **** slavery.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Got it. Not a fan of this then, I suppose:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first part about religion is a direct violation of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments of God, so no I'm not a fan nor would the Protestant reformers have been a fan either. Those are the principles of a religionist. Ask yourself this simple question...has God given you the "right" to sin?
There’s nothing you can do. History moves in great cycles: civilizations appear, rise, reach an apogee, decline, and eventually collapse. This one will be no different.
Accept it and move on. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS IS TRUTH ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What I want to know is how to profit from the decline ?
The first part about religion is a direct violation of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments of God, so no I'm not a fan nor would the Protestant reformers have been a fan either. Those are the principles of a religionist. Ask yourself this simple question...has God given you the "right" to sin?
You have free will. If you sin, or break the law, you pay the consequences. Give unto Caesar and whatnot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Respectfully, I’m just going to say it: folks like you are great at turning people away. You are theocrats, which is in direct conflict with how the founders set up this republic. Even though nearly all were Christian, they knew that a Christian theocracy was a terrible idea.
Can’t help but feel like these bullsh*t squabbles over gay wedding cakes and other such distractions are spearheaded by people like you. You’re doing damage to the cause of liberty, please try to see it. Your type are being played like a fiddle. A close-minded, nosey, preachy obnoxious fiddle. And then used as propaganda.
Please don’t be offended by any of this. I’m just trying to get my point across and if I said something insulting, that wasn’t my intent.
We need to give people we disagree with space to pursue happiness as they see fit, and stay over the REAL target: shrinking government.
The truth always turns unbelievers away...they hate it. The founders, even though they had some decent principles, weren't particular good religionists and/or Christians. And I don't believe in a theocracy as you understand it, for instance the mulahs of Iran. If you think the sodomites are just going to be swell upstanding live and let live citizens, I got a bridge in NY I want to sell you. I don't have a problem at all with shrinking the gov't since I believe in limited sovereignty concerning the magistrate. But in my world view magistrates are held accountable to God and to His law...that's Christian and that's where I stand even if alone. Libertarianism is amoral from my point of view.
The first part about religion is a direct violation of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments of God, so no I'm not a fan nor would the Protestant reformers have been a fan either. Those are the principles of a religionist. Ask yourself this simple question...has God given you the "right" to sin?
I think it is a much better deal than enforcing a state religion. Connecticut was officially Congregationalist till 1818 as an example.
Now if only we could prevent the state being a religion unto itself with it's 2 main sects.
You have free will. If you sin, or break the law, you pay the consequences. Give unto Caesar and whatnot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't believe in libertarian free will, it's a fiction. I'll ask again, has God given you the right to sin? And the scripture concerning Caesar is one of the most misused scriptures ever. Let me put it in a modern context...same principle applied...render unto Hitler what is Hitler's. Do you agree with that?
He's mentioned before that he believes the Constitution was a mistake.
I believe there are many good and useful things in the constitution and I believe that there are things very bad. Starting with we the people as the ultimate authority. Plain and simple, for a people that was exposed to the gospel as much as the Europeans and later the American were the founders showed quite conclusive who they thought sat of the throne of the universe.
I think it is a much better deal than enforcing a state religion. Connecticut was officially Congregationalist till 1818 as an example.
Now if only we could prevent the state being a religion unto itself with it's 2 main sects.
Is atheism your preference for a state religion? Because that's basically what we have had for a while now. It's not my preference.
Welp, this thread is a dumpster fire. Thanks guys. LOL.
No seriously, I ask everyone to help come up with tactics for ways for small-government liberty culture to win more support, and we all start squabbling over religion, which is one of the exact problems that turns people away from the right. It’s like a micro version of our problems on the national level, haha. We can’t put our swords down and agree with each other on much. There is no We, it seems. We’re all just here because we like guns, as Tom put it.
I believe there are many good and useful things in the constitution and I believe that there are things very bad. Starting with we the people as the ultimate authority. Plain and simple, for a people that was exposed to the gospel as much as the Europeans and later the American were the founders showed quite conclusive who they thought sat of the throne of the universe.
More than a few of them appeared to think they sat on it.
Lots of good ideas, just need to have fines, prison sentences, and hanging by the neck until dead for violations of each section.
Is atheism your preference for a state religion? Because that's basically what we have had for a while now. It's not my preference.
Looks like that was stated as the case in 1796.
Welp, this thread is a dumpster fire. Thanks guys. LOL.
No seriously, I ask everyone to help come up with tactics for ways for small-government liberty culture to win more support, and we all start squabbling over religion, which is one of the exact problems that turns people away from the right. It’s like a micro version of our problems on the national level, haha. We can’t put our swords down and agree with each other on much. There is no We, it seems. We’re all just here because we like guns, as Tom put it.
I try to stick to the not breaking others legs nor picking their pockets and expecting the same in return which is more than many/most can bear.
Welp, this thread is a dumpster fire. Thanks guys. LOL.
No seriously, I ask everyone to help come up with tactics for ways for small-government liberty culture to win more support, and we all start squabbling over religion, which is one of the exact problems that turns people away from the right. It’s like a micro version of our problems on the national level, haha. We can’t put our swords down and agree with each other on much. There is no We, it seems. We’re all just here because we like guns, as Tom put it.
It's all religion my fine fellow. Politics is just religion by other means, the passing of laws is directly and permanently attached to "your" view of what's right and wrong...that's religion. You should just roll with it. Did you really think that if we all just became libertarian that things would be so much sweller? It's the world view that is going to save us and it got short sheeted? How bout this...do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the un-religious enough?
More than a few of them appeared to think they sat on it.
Lots of good ideas, just need to have fines, prison sentences, and hanging by the neck until dead for violations of each section.
Yep...some men (maybe even women now) just want to lord it over others. I'm a Presbyterian and we really really don't like the idea of the divine right of kings and whatever tyrant comes along.
I'll tell you what Mozart, I'll bow out so you and the others can hash out how to fix the mess we're in without any references to religion.
It's all religion my fine fellow. Politics is just religion by other means, the passing of laws is directly and permanently attached to "your" view of what's right and wrong...that's religion. You should just roll with it. Did you really think that if we all just became libertarian that things would be so much sweller? It's the world view that is going to save us and it got short sheeted? How bout this...do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the un-religious enough?
Yes. I do. I believe that if most people held a live and let live attitude, wherein they don’t support each others’ way of life, but they will leave each other alone and at least tolerate differences, we’d be a better society. Much of our dysfunction comes from folks trying to weaponize the legislature against cultural practices they don’t approve of. And that happens with conservatives and leftists, and everyone in between. It’s a problem, nobody is willing to live alongside different cultures and morals. “We’re king of the hill now, so we’ll screw your people with new laws!” “Oh yeah?!? Wait a few years buddy! Well screw YOUR people!”
Instead of worrying about the left, our efforts would be better spent holding our "conservatives" accountable. While we are at it, might as well hold the NRA's feet to the fire and make them hold the damn line.
Every time our guys "meet in the middle" the whole country moves left.
It's all religion my fine fellow. Politics is just religion by other means, the passing of laws is directly and permanently attached to "your" view of what's right and wrong...that's religion. You should just roll with it. Did you really think that if we all just became libertarian that things would be so much sweller? It's the world view that is going to save us and it got short sheeted? How bout this...do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the un-religious enough?
Maybe I'm misinformed. I thought religion was not about "earthly matters" but was about being a "good soul" (and that is actions, not simply belief) so that you can gain whatever afterlife reward made a person "religious" in the first place. If it is all "just belief" then it's not "everything is religion" but "nothing is actually religion."
A religious belief is altogether different from political beliefs or social conventions. If one truly believes in an eternal afterlife, then we are talking about conduct where you stake your eternal existence on outcome. That is quite a bit more than belief, and far more important than making sure "Hillary didn't win." And quite honestly, if one is truly religious, then it doesn't matter what anyone else believes. Even if a person is the ONLY human on the planet that is correct in his actions according to his religion, that is all that would matter.
If I honestly and truly believed in a religion, I wouldn't have any kind of debates with anyone and I wouldn't care about anything else except being correct in my actions.
Yes. I do. I believe that if most people held a live and let live attitude, wherein they don’t support each others’ way of life, but they will leave each other alone and at least tolerate differences, we’d be a better society. Much of our dysfunction comes from folks trying to weaponize the legislature against cultural practices they don’t approve of. And that happens with conservatives and leftists, and everyone in between. It’s a problem, nobody is willing to live alongside different cultures and morals. “We’re king of the hill now, so we’ll screw your people with new laws!” “Oh yeah?!? Wait a few years buddy! Well screw YOUR people!”
Actually I think most people hold a live and let live attitude. We just don't want to be subjected to pride parades and we don't want to end up in tolerance camp. We also don't wish to be subjected to religious laws or to be told about how we are going to hell every 5 minutes.
The problem is both sides have let the extremists mainstream their views.
BoringGuy45
11-09-19, 23:28
If conservatives want to attract moderates, especially younger moderates, they have to stop with this "tough love" they think their giving people "for their own good." I agree that there are many who put themselves into bad situations because of poor planning, poor work ethic, and irresponsible decision making. But there are also those who have done the best they could, used common sense, worked their asses off, and still couldn't make ends meet. But the right doesn't believe in luck, and we seem to believe that the universe is totally fair: God always rewards the good and punishes the wicked. So conservatives look at people, especially the younger ones, see them in mountains of debt, underemployed or underpaid, unable to afford housing or medical insurance, often unable to afford a vehicle to get to and from work, and when they say they've had it up to here and don't know what to do, what does the right say? "Don't care, it's not our f**king problem."
I know that some are probably reading this and saying, "Sounds like a lot of bullshit millennial commie talk!" And there's the problem. That's what's driving people away: this apathy and contempt for the less fortunate.
You all aren’t doing anything to help with my recent anxiety/ depression over these past few days, LoL.
Pilgrim: not appease the left, ATRACT moderates. Like I said, we have sound arguments and irrefutable ideas with proven track records. We just need to stay on topic and avoid these stupid hot button topics that are of zero consequence to most people.
In all fairness, screw the so-called moderates. All these "sound arguments" you talk of - they are OUT THERE, in plain sight for everyone to see if they will but look. And they have been out there for decades at this point. And everything is available at a mere mouse click or two these days thanks to the internet, SO...if all these wonderful moderates just waiting to be converted out there haven't been converted yet... it's of their own lazy ass choice at this point, NOT any fault of ours for trying to reach them, seeing as how we've been preaching into the ether for decades now. THEY are the ones making the choice at this point to stay ignorant and middling, because that's the second easiest path out of this.
At this point they are the people who ask your advice for what gun to buy, because you're the "gun guy" and then after several hours of discussion, after you think you've made your points and they understand where they need to go, they turn up at the range with a hi-point, and you're like "wait... I thought we looked at these other guns" and they're like "yeah, but this one was on sale and I'll never need it anyway..."
You can't help the "moderates". They are as sick as the leftists, just in a different more subtle way, where, in some ways their non-confrontational "why can't we be friends" vibe hurts us just as bad as the raving fire and brimstone people....
Compromise kills.
And nobody is willing to compromise more or as fast as moderates because they cannot believe that there will never be an end to the 'taking' from the other side. They're still dumb enough to believe "one more step back" will see the end of it all.
Charlie Brown kicking the ball one more time...
....It’s a problem, nobody is willing to live alongside different cultures and morals.
Oh, on the contrary my musical friend, doing so for so long has gotten us to where we are now. We've been "accepting" and "tolerating" for so long that now that the real loonies are coming out of the closet we're in a corner. The "hot button topics" MUST be addressed at this point, because it's gone into insanity land.
At the same time we've spent so much time rehashing all this wonderful moo about how "America is for everyone" and "live and let live", that we can't back ourselves out of the hole we've dug to effectively address the craziness. Which is hilariously ironic when you consider the other side has people going about assaulting people to enforce their concept of an "overton window".
One problem is, we have a bunch of old-school politicians who are not "hip with the youth" and they only know the binary of "religious/not religious", rendering them ineffective in the current debate realm because no-one wants to be preached at anymore.
Then the other side of the coin is, dithering over that stuff is obviously all just a trap to buy time making people waste time on insane nonsense while they take everything else.
Maybe take a page out of the leftist's book; don't debate them. This being dragged around by the nose over stupid nonsense ends when someone finally has the balls to say, "NO, we do NOT accept you, our wildly differing concepts of culture and morals are NOT meant to exist happily side by side, goodbye, have a nice time with your crazy, we're moving on."
Once they realize their antics have no power over you anymore, what else are they going to do?
But that will never happen because nobody wants to be called mean names.
Welp, this thread is a dumpster fire. Thanks guys. LOL.
No seriously, I ask everyone to help come up with tactics for ways for small-government liberty culture to win more support, and we all start squabbling over religion, which is one of the exact problems that turns people away from the right. It’s like a micro version of our problems on the national level, haha. We can’t put our swords down and agree with each other on much. There is no We, it seems. We’re all just here because we like guns, as Tom put it.
Now you're starting to get it. :meeting:
As far as tactics- keep trying to make sense to the people that are interested and want to listen.
The rest will come to you when they have a "light bulb moment" for themselves. Or not.
Most likely not.
On the topic of religious derailment we agree. It's got to stop.
But even if it did, the fractiousness will continue over everything else, until people find something that ties them together more than the the topics or items they differ in opinion on.
Can’t help but feel like these bullsh*t squabbles over gay wedding cakes and other such distractions are spearheaded by people like you.
We need to give people we disagree with space to pursue happiness as they see fit, and stay over the REAL target: shrinking government.
Please flesh out what you mean by bullshit squabble.
I agree we need to live and let live, but since when does that mean automatically going along with folks you disagree with?
Please don’t be offended by any of this. I’m just trying to get my point across and if I said something insulting, that wasn’t my intent. Doesn't really fly with 'people like you' and the whole 'a close-minded, nosey, preachy obnoxious fiddle.'
I agree that if you continue to push your religion on folks who don't want to hear you are being obnoxious, but doesn't the same apply to pushing your sexual orientation?
If conservatives want to attract moderates, especially younger moderates, they have to stop with this "tough love" they think their giving people "for their own good." I agree that there are many who put themselves into bad situations because of poor planning, poor work ethic, and irresponsible decision making. But there are also those who have done the best they could, used common sense, worked their asses off, and still couldn't make ends meet. But the right doesn't believe in luck, and we seem to believe that the universe is totally fair: God always rewards the good and punishes the wicked. So conservatives look at people, especially the younger ones, see them in mountains of debt, underemployed or underpaid, unable to afford housing or medical insurance, often unable to afford a vehicle to get to and from work, and when they say they've had it up to here and don't know what to do, what does the right say? "Don't care, it's not our f**king problem."
I know that some are probably reading this and saying, "Sounds like a lot of bullshit millennial commie talk!" And there's the problem. That's what's driving people away: this apathy and contempt for the less fortunate.
Good post,
signed Boomer 26
Seriously, you pretty much nailed the way I feel about most folks - the right says 'fvck you buddy, I got mine' and the left says in order to build a better world, fvck you buddy, we're taking yours.' Both theologies - yes, I said theologies - drive folks away.
Don't believe in libertarian free will, it's a fiction. I'll ask again, has God given you the right to sin? And the scripture concerning Caesar is one of the most misused scriptures ever. Let me put it in a modern context...same principle applied...render unto Hitler what is Hitler's. Do you agree with that?
If you don’t believe in free will, how can you believe in there being a god?
And I already stated, yes there is a right to do as you please. You pay the consequences.
Please, tell me how I’m falsely applying the context? Literally, Caesar was evil and killing those that did not submit. So let me put this into an even more modern context. Are you being prevented from practicing your religion despite your hatred of the US Constitution?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
11-10-19, 06:15
>based
>Christpilled
We already have an existing model of the perfect confessional state. The issue being that it came from an an era of history that was glossed over, thusly said state appears alien to the vast majority of those in the West.
I've interacted with ole' jp before and he's an atheist, that's what he believes in, that's his world view. So we can't have all that "Bible thumping" as a viable position, what would be the go to position for jp? That's right...atheism.
I don't agree with the notion that "we are free to worship as we please", that might be the position of a religious pluralist, but that sure ain't the position of God Almighty and His word. People died at His hands for practicing that form of idolarty. It would take too long for me to explain my views of God, and the state. But I will say this, God has a HUGE interest in the nature and function of the state...He is sovereign over every...single...thing. If you really want to know something about my view then when you have some time and are so inclined read Psalm 2 for instance and get back to me and we can talk.
BoringGuy45
11-10-19, 07:19
Good post,
signed Boomer 26
Seriously, you pretty much nailed the way I feel about most folks - the right says 'fvck you buddy, I got mine' and the left says in order to build a better world, fvck you buddy, we're taking yours.' Both theologies - yes, I said theologies - drive folks away.
Totally agree. But right now, the left is doing a better job of packaging their theology by claiming they're only going to be taking from the people who screwed everybody over and don't deserve what they have. And because of that, they're attracting a lot more folks who don't see the danger.
Also, I don't blame the Boomers exclusively for the heartless attitude towards the downtrodden. I've found it's a pretty common among conservative millennials as well.
I hate to tell ya'll but it is a lost cause.
The government is already so big it is a corrupt, self fulfilling prophecy. Wonder why all the FBI leadership are Democrats? Because people don't like change and they aren't going to vote for something against their own interests. There is no way Trump can drain the swamp quickly enough to have an impact.
You also have the accomplice media organizations filling the heads of the lemmings with lies on a daily basis. There are millions of people who sit on their couches and believe everything they are fed on CNN, MSNBC etc.......
BoringGuy45
11-10-19, 07:54
I hate to tell ya'll but it is a lost cause.
The government is already so big it is a corrupt, self fulfilling prophecy. Wonder why all the FBI leadership are Democrats? Because people don't like change and they aren't going to vote for something against their own interests. There is no way Trump can drain the swamp quickly enough to have an impact.
You also have the accomplice media organizations filling the heads of the lemmings with lies on a daily basis. There are millions of people who sit on their couches and believe everything they are fed on CNN, MSNBC etc.......
Maybe it's a lost cause, and maybe it isn't. Doesn't mean we don't go down fighting. Lot's of lost causes turned into rebirths.
I hate to tell ya'll but it is a lost cause.
The government is already so big it is a corrupt, self fulfilling prophecy. Wonder why all the FBI leadership are Democrats? Because people don't like change and they aren't going to vote for something against their own interests. There is no way Trump can drain the swamp quickly enough to have an impact.
You also have the accomplice media organizations filling the heads of the lemmings with lies on a daily basis. There are millions of people who sit on their couches and believe everything they are fed on CNN, MSNBC etc.......
This the interview this thread links to is worth reading.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?218723-The-Codevilla-Tapes-on-Ruling-Class-Entitlement
Yes. I do. I believe that if most people held a live and let live attitude, wherein they don’t support each others’ way of life, but they will leave each other alone and at least tolerate differences, we’d be a better society. Much of our dysfunction comes from folks trying to weaponize the legislature against cultural practices they don’t approve of. And that happens with conservatives and leftists, and everyone in between. It’s a problem, nobody is willing to live alongside different cultures and morals. “We’re king of the hill now, so we’ll screw your people with new laws!” “Oh yeah?!? Wait a few years buddy! Well screw YOUR people!”
That came up awhile back in a war on drugs thread where I mentioned all the people I knew that supported the war on drugs, yet many drink alcohol constantly(and would have been on the receiving end of the shitty stick a Century ago) or getting Rx after Rx.
One lady in particular was mentioning not liking .gov telling people how to raise their kids, but was horrified by the 1990's libertarian platform because they would have it set up so nothing could be done to someone else unless they were actually doing something wrong against another. Well, yeah. And she was also a strong drug war supporter while running around with a mini pharmacy of other people's left over Rx antibiotics, sleep aids, & pain killers. Somehow it was mystically different when she did it so that she wasn't one invasive traffic stop away from being in the same lot as all those people she wanted .gov to deal with.
Good post,
signed Boomer 26
Seriously, you pretty much nailed the way I feel about most folks - the right says 'fvck you buddy, I got mine' and the left says in order to build a better world, fvck you buddy, we're taking yours.' Both theologies - yes, I said theologies - drive folks away.
That is a very clear and concise way to put it. (D) and (R) are the largest religion(s) in the US.
turnburglar
11-10-19, 09:42
There’s nothing you can do. History moves in great cycles: civilizations appear, rise, reach an apogee, decline, and eventually collapse. This one will be no different.
Accept it and move on.
Not the Chinese Bro. They the sole survivors on this rock.
To answer the OP's original question: The GOP isn't failing solely because of LGBQT tolerance. I know more than one member of that group that votes red. I know straight people that vote blue. I recently did research and found that less than 20% of a party believe in the core values of the party. The other 80% are simply voting one way because they are terrified of the other way. It really is that simple.
To explain why states are changing? It has to do with the great millennial migration. I am a perfect example. I was born and raised in CA. Even despite good jobs and dual income my wife and I could NEVER afford to live where I was born. The population is a odd mix of "people who where here before the real estate boomed" and "Millionaires" and then a shit load of homeless. Because so many millennials know that they will never make it in the job or housing markets from the big cities, we simply leave and go somewhere else. I have always voted red, and will continue to vote red where ever I live. A lot of these outa-stater's will bring their BS politics and voting with them. Because they are sheep, and stick to a favorite party because that equals moral righteousness.
BoringGuy45
11-10-19, 11:33
That is a very clear and concise way to put it. (D) and (R) are the largest religion(s) in the US.
Another thing I'd add to 26 Inf's very accurate assessment of the left v. the right:
The left is pushing for a utopian future that will never be.
The right wants to return to an ideal past that never existed.
Not going to acquiesce to libertarian policies, I would have to renounce my religion first so I could be consistent. Not happening. Besides, I never put my trust in magistrates.
Pretty much. Not in the habit of throwing my convictions overboard to suit the spirit of the times.
The fastest growing religion worldwide is the Church of the Earth - the doctrine of Climate Change. If you're not a believer, you're considered a heretic to be destroyed. Just like in the middle ages when you could pay indulgences to the Roman Catholic Church to buy your relatives out of Hell, now you can buy Carbon Credits or Carbon offsets to pay for your carbon usage sins.
Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and others are then new High Priests of this earth worship religion. I'll remain a heretic.
The founder were very few. The more people that get together the less they find that they are in agreement on. Social media is just showing us how much people really hate each other. The left is attempting to subjugate American constitutionalists by force so they can coexist with muslims, drug addicts, LGBT's, the BATFE, and other alphabet agencies apposed to freedom.
Force is force. It doesn't really matter whether its armed force or being forced to comply with or by unconstitutional laws.
The founder were very few. The more people that get together the less they find that they are in agreement on.
Seems appropriate to drop this here, written 20 years ago, in 1998:
Perspectives on the Constitution: A Republic, If You Can Keep It
By Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D.
While today we marvel at the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures was considerably less enthusiastic. Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: "…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views." He thought it impossible to expect a "perfect production" from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.
Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin's logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it. Their over-riding concern was the tendency in nearly all parts of the young country toward disorder and disintegration. Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty--"democracy"--as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. But they had not yet worked out fully the question that has plagued all nations aspiring to democratic government ever since: how to implement principles of popular majority rule while at the same time preserving stable governments that protect the rights and liberties of all citizens.
Few believed that a new federal constitution alone would be sufficient to create a unified nation out of a collection of independent republics spread out over a vast physical space, extraordinarily diverse in their economic interests, regional loyalties, and ethnic and religious attachments. And there would be new signs of disorder after 1787 that would remind Americans what an incomplete and unstable national structure they had created: settlers in western Pennsylvania rebelled in 1794 because of taxes on their locally distilled whiskey; in western North Carolina there were abortive attempts to create an independent republic of "Franklin" which would ally itself with Spain to insure its independence from the United States; there was continued conflict with Indians across the whole western frontier and increased fear of slave unrest, particularly when news of the slave-led revolution in Haiti reached American shores.
But as fragile as America's federal edifice was at the time of the founding, there was much in the culture and environment that contributed to a national consensus and cohesion: a common language; a solid belief in the principles of English common law and constitutionalism; a widespread commitment (albeit in diverse forms) to the Protestant religion; a shared revolutionary experience; and, perhaps most important, an economic environment which promised most free, white Americans if not great wealth, at least an independent sufficiency.
The American statesmen who succeeded those of the founding generation served their country with a self-conscious sense that the challenges of maintaining a democratic union were every bit as great after 1787 as they were before. Some aspects of their nation-building program--their continuing toleration of slavery and genocidal policies toward American Indians--are fit objects of national shame, not honor. But statesmen of succeeding generations--Lincoln foremost among them--would continue the quest for a "more perfect union."
Such has been our success in building a powerful and cohesive democratic nation-state in post-Civil War America that most Americans today assume that principles of democracy and national harmony somehow naturally go hand-in-hand. But as we look around the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era, we find ample evidence that democratic revolutions do not inevitably lead to national harmony or universal justice. We see that the expression of the "popular will" can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the "popular will" is nothing more than the unleashing of primordial forces of tribal and religious identity which further confound the goal of building stable and consensual governments.
As we look at the state of our federal union 211 years after the Founders completed their work, there is cause for satisfaction that we have avoided many of the plagues afflicting so many other societies, but this is hardly cause for complacency. To be sure, the US Constitution itself has not only survived the crises confronting it in the past, but in so doing, it has in itself become our nation's most powerful symbol of unity--a far preferable alternative to a monarch or a national religion, the institutions on which most nations around the world have relied. Moreover, our Constitution is a stronger, better document than it was when it initially emerged from the Philadelphia Convention. Through the amendment process (in particular, through the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments), it has become the protector of the rights of all the people, not just some of the people.
On the other hand, the challenges to national unity under our Constitution are, if anything, far greater than those confronting the infant nation in 1787. Although the new nation was a pluralistic one by the standards of the 18th century, the face of America in 1998 looks very different from the original: we are no longer a people united by a common language, religion or culture; and while our overall level of material prosperity is staggering by the standards of any age, the widening gulf between rich and poor is perhaps the most serious threat to a common definition of the "pursuit of happiness."
The conditions that threaten to undermine our sense of nationhood, bound up in the debate over slavery and manifested in intense sectional conflict during the pre-Civil War era, are today both more complex and diffuse. Some of today's conditions are part of the tragic legacy of slavery--a racial climate marked too often by mutual mistrust and misunderstanding and a condition of desperate poverty within our inner cities that has left many young people so alienated that any standard definition of citizenship becomes meaningless. More commonly, but in the long run perhaps just as alarming, tens of millions of Americans have been turned-off by the corrupting effects of money on the political system. Bombarded with negative advertising about their candidates, they express their feelings of alienation by staying home on election day.
If there is a lesson in all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.
Dr. Richard Beeman is professor of history and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. The University is NCC's academic partner, and for the year 1997 – 98. Dr. Beeman serves as vice chair of our Distinguished Scholars Advisory Panel.
https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/historical-documents/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
Another thing I'd add to 26 Inf's very accurate assessment of the left v. the right:
The left is pushing for a utopian future that will never be.
The right wants to return to an ideal past that never existed.
I'll fine-tune that statement a bit: the Right, or I should say Conservatives, essentially want to be left alone. No one I know wants to return to the 1950's with blacks eating at a separate counter from whites or using a different restroom, or perhaps harming someone who is gay just for the fact that they are gay. If you don't like icky guns then don't own one, but don't tell me I can't because you don't like them.
The Left, however, wants to ram their agenda down your throat whether you like it or not. Global warming (oops, forgot it's now climate change), gun control, gay "rights", illegal alien worship, etc. require FORCED MANDATORY PARTICIPATION. If you don't then you are a heretic to be banished at a minimum and preferably burned at the stake. It's not enough that they don't like guns.....no, that means YOU can't own any either. It's not enough that you merely accept gays.....no, you must revel and rejoice in it or you're a bigot.
Starting to see the big difference?
“‘Guns, that is the most pressing issue for me,‘ said Vijay Katkuri, 38, a software engineer from southern India, explaining why he voted for a Democratic challenger in Tuesday’s elections.“
https://vdare.com/posts/nyt-virginia-turned-blue-because-of-immigration?scroll_to_paragraph=1
“‘Guns, that is the most pressing issue for me,‘ said Vijay Katkuri, 38, a software engineer from southern India, explaining why he voted for a Democratic challenger in Tuesday’s elections.“
https://vdare.com/posts/nyt-virginia-turned-blue-because-of-immigration?scroll_to_paragraph=1
Well ol' Vijay can go right the f**k back where he came from then! And yes, even though he's [likely] become a citizen he can still go the f**k back to India. Just like Americans in Red areas don't like Blue imports moving there and then bringing their libtard voting habits with them, same goes for those moving from other countries.
Please flesh out what you mean by bullshit squabble.
I agree we need to live and let live, but since when does that mean automatically going along with folks you disagree with?
Please don’t be offended by any of this. I’m just trying to get my point across and if I said something insulting, that wasn’t my intent. Doesn't really fly with 'people like you' and the whole 'a close-minded, nosey, preachy obnoxious fiddle.'
I agree that if you continue to push your religion on folks who don't want to hear you are being obnoxious, but doesn't the same apply to pushing your sexual orientation?
I meant in terms of most important issues facing the average person, whether some holier-than thou jerk refuses to bake a cake is not high on that list for most people.
Most people care about their money, their retirement, their health, their rights, their safety. So banging on about what bathroom some lady dude is supposed to use or whatever, is not staying over the target.
Good post,
signed Boomer 26
Seriously, you pretty much nailed the way I feel about most folks - the right says 'fvck you buddy, I got mine' and the left says in order to build a better world, fvck you buddy, we're taking yours.' Both theologies - yes, I said theologies - drive folks away.
Perfect. Both of you. Well put
Another thing I'd add to 26 Inf's very accurate assessment of the left v. the right:
The left is pushing for a utopian future that will never be.
The right wants to return to an ideal past that never existed.
Boring guy speaks truth backed by the historical record.
Right wing revolutions look to the past. Franco dredged up images of old Spanish conquests. Mussolini invoked ancient Rome and the Italian renaissance (his slogan was Make italy Great Again). Hitler had no such history in Germany so he talked of Vikings and Nordic demigods.
Reagan and Trump recall an America that never really existed.
On the other hand, egalitarian revolutions look to a perfect future. The French Revolution, Bolshevik revolution, etc all see a dark past replaced.
Democrats think perfection can be achieved.
What's important is that the American revolution fits neither of these types.
I meant in terms of most important issues facing the average person, whether some holier-than thou jerk refuses to bake a cake is not high on that list for most people.
Most people care about their money, their retirement, their health, their rights, their safety. So banging on about what bathroom some lady dude is supposed to use or whatever, is not staying over the target.
The 'silent majority' is getting tired of having 'woke' shit shoved down their throats, in addition to worrying about their retirement, their rights, and their safety.
As far as the 'holier than thou jerk' he offered to make every accommodation for the couple EXCEPT make them a wedding cake, that kind of changes the narrative a little from the holier than thou thing. The gay couple was seemingly intent on making an issue of the deal, reportedly they had targeted the guy because his beliefs were known.
We will have to disagree on who is the jerk.
I meant in terms of most important issues facing the average person, whether some holier-than thou jerk refuses to bake a cake is not high on that list for most people.
I agree with there being more pressing issues to attend to but it’s been that way forever. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. As 26 Inf pointed out with his quote on the Founders, even those smart guys didn’t agree on everything. And what they disagreed on were some really huge issues. Just imagine the big government they argued over then. Both sides would recoil in disbelief at the government we have now! Lol
As to the “holier than though jerk” baker, from what I’ve read, he’s anything but. He just wants to be left the hell alone and run his business the way he wants which he should have the right to do. I don’t blame him one damned bit for standing his ground and fighting the governmental overreach. Simply because two gays wanted to make a political statement when they could’ve gone a thousand other places to have their cake baked.
We had a discussion in the cake thread months ago about how the gay community is making a mockery of civil rights by equating what they’re going through with the civil rights movement of the 60s. It’s shameful.
We are all being forced to pick sides and I don’t like it any more than you or most others here. The difference is the left is ramrodding their ideals down our throats, often violently. If the moderates you would seek to turn to “our” side could be swayed by the wild views of the socialists vying for office, or could so easily be turned away from our side due to some preachy, fake Christians, then I don’t see much hope.
That being said, I think most of us agree on a lot more than we disagree. If more of us got together to have a drink and a steak instead of bickering, you’d be amazed. We all need to turn off the TV and relax a while.
ETA:
26 Inf beat me to it. [emoji3]
The 'silent majority' is getting tired of having 'woke' shit shoved down their throats, in addition to worrying about their retirement, their rights, and their safety.
As far as the 'holier than thou jerk' he offered to make every accommodation for the couple EXCEPT make them a wedding cake, that kind of changes the narrative a little from the holier than thou thing. The gay couple was seemingly intent on making an issue of the deal, reportedly they had targeted the guy because his beliefs were known.
We will have to disagree on who is the jerk.
Maybe I went a little far calling the guy a jerk, but I do believe there is something wrong in that situation. No ones’ faith has to enter the equation. They want a cake, you sell cakes, they have money, you exchange your cake for their money. Not sure how any of that would anger god, just doing business with people. The whole thing seems so unreasonable, you don’t have to give two thumbs up in support of their lifestyle, and by selling them a cake, you’re not. I don’t get what the problem is, I really don’t. But anyway, yes, we disagree.
My point still stands tho, that these type of stories amount to nothing important. They cause people to bicker and take sides, meanwhile nothing gets done. Pretty sure everyone should be talking far more about the Epstein cover up, or the Snowden leaks, or the banker bailouts/greatest robbery in human history. We need to do better
Outlander Systems
11-11-19, 07:08
Name one thing “Conservatism” has conserved.
I’ll wait.
Maybe I went a little far calling the guy a jerk, but I do believe there is something wrong in that situation. No ones’ faith has to enter the equation. They want a cake, you sell cakes, they have money, you exchange your cake for their money. Not sure how any of that would anger god, just doing business with people. The whole thing seems so unreasonable, you don’t have to give two thumbs up in support of their lifestyle, and by selling them a cake, you’re not. I don’t get what the problem is, I really don’t. But anyway, yes, we disagree.
My point still stands tho, that these type of stories amount to nothing important. They cause people to bicker and take sides, meanwhile nothing gets done. Pretty sure everyone should be talking far more about the Epstein cover up, or the Snowden leaks, or the banker bailouts/greatest robbery in human history. We need to do better
It doesn’t matter who the jerk is, but just a bit of research can help you figure that out, the state shouldn’t FORCE you to do business with those you don’t want to. That’s how we start the boogaloo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LQBT is a losing proposition. There are outliers, but they are unicorns.
You need to focus on what the majority of people want and are concerned about. Winning an election.
What effects Republicans winning anymore in the future? Immigration. What needs fixed and limited? Immigration. Legal and Illegal.
70% of ALL immigrants vote Left. May not matter so much now, but every year more of their children vote. See how that could become a problem in 4-10 years?
Besides that, it's preservation of the nuclear family. LGBT is incompatible with that.
Name one thing “Conservatism” has conserved.
I’ll wait.
We still have firearms in private hands. Employers in all states are not mandated to provide a particular amount of time off to employees. The FLSA doesn’t apply to ministers.
It’s a never ending battle, and to preserve some things, they have had to sacrifice others to the majority
Most people don’t know what they want other than free stuff. Libertarians want everything free to be chosen. The Left want everything free for those who have less than those in the two income brackets higher than they are themselves. Conservatives want to be left alone.
I think ideologues of libertarianism and conservatism misunderstand how much most Americans, regardless of their claimed political stripe, really want everything, or many things, handed to them. Seriously. Only compromise has kept us from having everything taken. The only way this is reversed is with active, terrible violence. And who really wants to be the person or group that starts that, against the will of the majority? I’ll wait.
Also, BoringGuy did a good summary.
Whiskey_Bravo
11-11-19, 11:49
Right wing revolutions look to the past. Franco dredged up images of old Spanish conquests. Mussolini invoked ancient Rome and the Italian renaissance (his slogan was Make italy Great Again). Hitler had no such history in Germany so he talked of Vikings and Nordic demigods.
"working to make America great". From a speech in 1929 when he was attempting to better ties with the US before siding with Hitler. Unless you can find evidence once line from a speech(that doesn't really even say make America great again) isn't exactly a "slogan".
Speaking in English Mussolini says: "I greet with wonderful energy the American people and I see and recognize among you the salt of your land, as well as ours, my fellow citizens who are working to make America great."
Whiskey_Bravo
11-11-19, 11:57
Maybe I went a little far calling the guy a jerk, but I do believe there is something wrong in that situation. No ones’ faith has to enter the equation. They want a cake, you sell cakes, they have money, you exchange your cake for their money. Not sure how any of that would anger god, just doing business with people. The whole thing seems so unreasonable, you don’t have to give two thumbs up in support of their lifestyle, and by selling them a cake, you’re not. I don’t get what the problem is, I really don’t. But anyway, yes, we disagree.
My point still stands tho, that these type of stories amount to nothing important. They cause people to bicker and take sides, meanwhile nothing gets done. Pretty sure everyone should be talking far more about the Epstein cover up, or the Snowden leaks, or the banker bailouts/greatest robbery in human history. We need to do better
There is nothing wrong with the situation. He offered to sell them a regular cake. But they only wanted a customized wedding cake. Forcing someone to use their artistic talents for something that don't want to , don't agree with, or don't believe in is wrong in any sense of the word wrong.
If I do paint portraits I should not be forced into painting two gay dudes holding hands anymore than being forced to paint a portrait of a guy wearing a nazi uniform or Hillary Clinton sitting in the oval office. If I don't want to paint it I shouldn't be forced to do it. The person commissioning it should move on to someone that wants to do it.
I'm just waiting for someone to challenge legally the private business entry requirement of:
"No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service"
That would be a fun case to monitor. I'm sure it would take the social justice line that you can't discriminate against some because they're too poor to buy shoes or a shirt.
Ever read Ender’s Game?
Where the concept of Three Dimensionality finally hits him?
When do WE get that moment?
grizzlyblake
11-11-19, 15:21
Whoa. Where have you been?
Diamondback
11-11-19, 16:04
We still have firearms in private hands. Employers in all states are not mandated to provide a particular amount of time off to employees. The FLSA doesn’t apply to ministers.
It’s a never ending battle, and to preserve some things, they have had to sacrifice others to the majority
Most people don’t know what they want other than free stuff. Libertarians want everything free to be chosen. The Left want everything free for those who have less than those in the two income brackets higher than they are themselves. Conservatives want to be left alone.
I think ideologues of libertarianism and conservatism misunderstand how much most Americans, regardless of their claimed political stripe, really want everything, or many things, handed to them. Seriously. Only compromise has kept us from having everything taken. The only way this is reversed is with active, terrible violence. And who really wants to be the person or group that starts that, against the will of the majority? I’ll wait.
Also, BoringGuy did a good summary.
Seriously. Redstate just rolled out paid extra content in addition to the free stuff we'e always had, and if you saw how many "market conservatives" there are bitching about "MUH FREE LUNCH!"...
Well I bowed out of this thread so you all could continue without having religion mucking up the great libertarian fix, and what do I see...Christian's are the prob... not the "just want to be left alone" gays. If you dangled a billion dollars in my face I wouldnt become a libertarian. Just another subset of atheists and wayward evangleicals.
Well I bowed out of this thread so you all could continue without having religion mucking up the great libertarian fix, and what do I see...Christian's are the prob... not the "just want to be left alone" gays. If you dangled a billion dollars in my face I wouldnt become a libertarian. Just another subset of atheists and wayward evangleicals.
Theocracy is a terrible idea. Period.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Theocracy is a terrible idea. Period.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wasnt advocating a theocracy, I advocate theonomy, there's a differences. But since you seem to not understand what i peacefully advocate and you seem somewhat religious, I'll ask you a theological question. Was King David's kingdom, which biblically speaking, was set up directly by God a bad idea?
Wasnt advocating a theocracy, I advocate theonomy, there's a differences. But since you seem to not understand what i peacefully advocate and you seem somewhat religious, I'll ask you a theological question. Was King David's kingdom, which biblically speaking, was set up directly by God a bad idea?
Theonomy is rule by divine law, including the laws of the Old Testament. Are you suggesting applying those laws literally, including the prescribed punishments?
Wasnt advocating a theocracy, I advocate theonomy, there's a differences. But since you seem to not understand what i peacefully advocate and you seem somewhat religious, I'll ask you a theological question. Was King David's kingdom, which biblically speaking, was set up directly by God a bad idea?
I’m not sure theonomy is any better. Further, it is important to note that, biblically speaking, god used political systems to both reward and punish his believers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Theonomy is rule by divine law, including the laws of the Old Testament. Are you suggesting applying those laws literally, including the prescribed punishments?
Historic theonomy says the judicial laws of ancient Israel are done away with but their moral equity is still in effect. The 10 commandments are moral law and binding. David's kingdom was a theonomy. He didnt run the temple the churchmen did. But he did uphold Gods law and the various penalties attached to law breaking. There was a separation between the ONE church and state, but not an absolute separation. They were to work together for the peace of the kingdom. Who's law is supreme in your life? God's or men? How many law givers are there for you? One or many? Is Christ actually the King of kings for you or not. Is His word supreme or men's. Read psalm 2.. Christians talk about Jesus being king but like unbelievers in His day they dont want Him ruling over them by His word/law especially when it comes to the secular govt. What I'm saying now wouldnt be strange at all to the protestant reformers.
I’m not sure theonomy is any better. Further, it is important to note that, biblically speaking, god used political systems to both reward and punish his believers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is better then? Rank unbelievers ruling? You evidently have a low opinion of Christ and His law.
Historic theonomy says the judicial laws of ancient Israel are done away with but their moral equity is still in effect. The 10 commandments are moral law and binding. David's kingdom was a theonomy. He didnt run the temple the churchmen did. But he did uphold Gods law and the various penalties attached to law breaking. There was a separation between the ONE church and state, but not an absolute separation. They were to work together for the peace of the kingdom. Who's law is supreme in your life? God's or men? How many law givers are there for you? One or many? Is Christ actually the King of kings for you or not. Is His word supreme or men's. Read psalm 2.. Christians talk about Jesus being king but like unbelievers in His day they dont want Him ruling over them by His word/law especially when it comes to the secular govt. What I'm saying now wouldnt be strange at all to the protestant reformers.
Who’s version of “gods law” do you suggest we make law? What about those that don’t believe in “god’s law”? Do you still intend to enforce it on them? What happens when somebody believing in a different god than yours is elected and intends to enforce their “god’s law” on you? What about the things that are needed to govern society which “god’s law” doesn’t cover?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is better then? Rank unbelievers ruling? You evidently have a low opinion of Christ and His law.
Who says one can’t follow “god’s law” without government being the enforcement body...as it was through most of the Bible?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who’s version of “gods law” do you suggest we make law? What about those that don’t believe in “god’s law”? Do you still intend to enforce it on them? What happens when somebody believing in a different god than yours is elected and intends to enforce their “god’s law” on you? What about the things that are needed to govern society which “god’s law” doesn’t cover?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Evidently your not a Christian. I dont advocate violence to bring about this change. When God in His own timing converts the nations, and the vast majority of the people believe then a change to a biblically based republic is then possible. If 90% of the people in the US were united in faith and practice, then I believe great things are possible. I dont expect this in my lifetime, Gods people have forgotten their reformation heritage and now we are ruled over by religionists and atheists.
Who says one can’t follow “god’s law” without government being the enforcement body...as it was through most of the Bible?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You confuse what God has brought about providentially with what God has commanded. The constitution itself grossly violates Gods law.
Evidently your not a Christian.
Evidently you’re wanting to force everybody to follow the good book no matter what they believe in.
I’ve read the Bible multiple times, studied it for several years, and grew up surrounded by religion.
My beliefs then or now have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It is evident that you can’t imagine others that interpret things differently than you or may want to preserve liberty for those that don’t believe as you do.
My neighbor may be a cocksucking fag, so should we stone him? Spend public resources to reform him? Or leave the mofo alone as long as he doesn’t hurt others?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You confuse what God has brought about providentially with what God has commanded. The constitution itself grossly violates Gods law.
The founding fathers would have disagreed with you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Evidently you’re wanting to force everybody to follow the good book no matter what they believe in.
I’ve read the Bible multiple times, studied it for several years, and grew up surrounded by religion.
My beliefs then or now have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It is evident that you can’t imagine others that interpret things differently than you or may want to preserve liberty for those that don’t believe as you do.
My neighbor may be a cocksucking fag, so should we stone him? Spend public resources to reform him? Or leave the mofo alone as long as he doesn’t hurt others?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again by the use of filthy language you're proving my point.
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I havent voted in over 20 years, so I'm not picking or choosing ANY politians. But you are, arent you?
As for sodomites, I believe the practice of homosexuality is a sin and a crime. God says so. At one time it was a crime in this country, but the unbelievers didnt want that so they prevailed.
The founding fathers would have disagreed with you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course they would they were religious pluralist, I'm not. The free exercise clause of the constitution is EASILY understood to violate the 1st commandment. But who you going to follow the bible or men. Compare the 2 for youself.
Of course they would they were religious pluralist, I'm not. The free exercise clause of the constitution is EASILY understood to violate the 1st commandment. But who you going to follow the bible or men. Compare the 2 for youself.
Please, explain how “free exercise clause” violates the first commandment?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please, explain how “free exercise clause” violates the first commandment?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It codifies into the law of the the land that the govt will recognize your "right" to worship any god, gods you like. It codified as okie dokie any and all gross idolatry. God says in the 1st commandment..."you shall have no other gods before me". And if you do, well it ain't pleasant. Men everywhere in every time are not exempt from upholding this law. Because you hold the reins of power makes you especially responsible to God.
I asked you before if we have a right from God to sin...you fumbled.you dont...why? Because if you sin there is penalty to be paid for that sin. There is no right to murder, or steal, or to subscribe to a false and idolatrous religion....there's a penalty for thos things. There is no penalty for doing righteousness as defined by God.
It codifies into the law of the the land that the govt will recognize your "right" to worship any god, gods you like. It codified as okie dokie any and all gross idolatry. God says in the 1st commandment..."you shall have no other gods before me". And if you do, well it ain't pleasant. Men everywhere in every time are not exempt from upholding this law. Because you hold the reins of power makes you especially responsible to God.
You are a lunatic.
Honestly. There is no other way to put it.
It simply states the government cannot establish a religion and that people cannot be forced into one. It doesn’t prevent Christians from respecting the first commandment.
I can’t find anywhere in the first commandment where it states government must ensure citizens don’t worship other gods nor a recommended punishment to be imposed by governments when citizens do so. Please, direct me to that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem with libertarianism at its root is that it postulates that men have it within themselves to just live and let live on all sorts of behaviors that they think are benign. We dont and never have. We are one corrupt bunch of humanity. I'm not forcing anyone to to anything I've said, but I'm despised for it.
You are a lunatic.
Honestly. There is no other way to put it.
It simply states the government cannot establish a religion and that people cannot be forced into one. It doesn’t prevent Christians from respecting the first commandment.
I can’t find anywhere in the first commandment where it states government must ensure citizens don’t worship other gods nor a recommended punishment to be imposed by governments when citizens do so. Please, direct me to that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Listen closely. God requires all men in whatever position they find themselves in to uphold His law. The founders were required to honor God as they wrote the constitution, but what they did is to codify some fake right to idolatry. They should have declared Jesus Chtist the king of the nation but like you fumbled at the one. You somehow think that kings of the earth are exempt from obedience, then read psalm 2.
Said another way it's called the Bill of Rights. The founders said you have a "right" to do what God has said you dont have a right to do.
Jesus was said to have a demon, I'll stand with him as another lunatic.
Listen closely. God requires all men in whatever position they find themselves in to uphold His law. The founders were required to honor God as they wrote the constitution, but what they did is to codify some fake right to idolatry. They should have declared Jesus Chtist the king of the nation but like you fumbled at the one. You somehow think that kings of the earth are exempt from obedience, then read psalm 2.
Jesus was said to have a demon, I'll stand with him as another lunatic.
Please, answer my questions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I meant in terms of most important issues facing the average person, whether some holier-than thou jerk refuses to bake a cake is not high on that list for most people.
Most people care about their money, their retirement, their health, their rights, their safety. So banging on about what bathroom some lady dude is supposed to use or whatever, is not staying over the target.As someone who talks about these issues. I talk about them because I do care about them.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
Listen closely. God requires all men in whatever position they find themselves in to uphold His law. The founders were required to honor God as they wrote the constitution, but what they did is to codify some fake right to idolatry. They should have declared Jesus Chtist the king of the nation but like you fumbled at the one. You somehow think that kings of the earth are exempt from obedience, then read psalm 2.
Said another way it's called the Bill of Rights. The founders said you have a "right" to do what God has said you dont have a right to do.
Jesus was said to have a demon, I'll stand with him as another lunatic.
An additional question, where does it state god requires you to force others to uphold his law.
What should the worldly punishment be, per god’s word, for failing to uphold the first commandment?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
11-11-19, 21:07
I'm a Christian, but I'm for a secular government. This isn't to say I'm for the forceful removal of religion from all public life, or that public officials need to masquerade as atheists in order to be compliant with the Constitution. But theocracy and theonomy have had a 100% failure rate in terms of protecting rights over the past 2000 years. It's kinda the reason why "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is the very first clause in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. A Christian dictatorship is a recipe for disaster; it will, not can, WILL, be used as a weapon by power hungry despots who claim that, being representatives of God's authority, they are answerable to nobody.
My pastor said it best, I believe: A Republic is the most Christian form of government, because it recognizes that people are sinful, selfish, and corrupt. An ungoverned population cannot be trusted, and neither can an unchecked government. So, though it's still imperfect, the best humanity can manage is a system where both the people and the government answer to each other.
Outlander Systems
11-11-19, 21:07
While he may be a limp-wristed, evangelical heretic, he’s right about libertarianism.
Please, answer my questions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe I went a little far calling the guy a jerk, but I do believe there is something wrong in that situation. No ones’ faith has to enter the equation. They want a cake, you sell cakes, they have money, you exchange your cake for their money. Not sure how any of that would anger god, just doing business with people. The whole thing seems so unreasonable, you don’t have to give two thumbs up in support of their lifestyle, and by selling them a cake, you’re not. I don’t get what the problem is, I really don’t. But anyway, yes, we disagree.
My point still stands tho, that these type of stories amount to nothing important. They cause people to bicker and take sides, meanwhile nothing gets done. Pretty sure everyone should be talking far more about the Epstein cover up, or the Snowden leaks, or the banker bailouts/greatest robbery in human history. We need to do betterThat is one way of looking at it. Of course that is just your perspective.
The fact is it was their business and they attempted to work with the customer, and we're unwilling to cross a line of their religious beliefs (not what you think they should have been).
The situation obviously doesn't seem like a big deal to you, but also obviously don't have their beliefs.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
While he may be a limp-wristed, evangelical heretic, he’s right about libertarianism.
I didn’t advocate libertarianism but want to know where his religion needs imposed on others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess if I’m not a Christian, Tom should use the force of government to kill me? I don’t have a right to exist outside his ideals?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm a Christian, but I'm for a secular government. This isn't to say I'm for the forceful removal of religion from all public life, or that public officials need to masquerade as atheists in order to be compliant with the Constitution. But theocracy and theonomy have had a 100% failure rate in terms of protecting rights over the past 2000 years. It's kinda the reason why "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is the very first clause in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. A Christian dictatorship is a recipe for disaster; it will, not can, WILL, be used as a weapon by power hungry despots who claim that, being representatives of God's authority, they are answerable to nobody.
My pastor said it best, I believe: A Republic is the most Christian form of government, because it recognizes that people are sinful, selfish, and corrupt. An ungoverned population cannot be trusted, and neither can an unchecked government. So, though it's still imperfect, the best humanity can manage is a system where both the people and the government answer to each other.
Thumbs up again...
The resident “lunatic” isn’t actually far off in his assessment of libertarianism, nor is he out of the ordinary in a super strict and traditional interpretation of government. Actually...he is the very reason the founders of this country, and many of the citizens of that time, wanted to avoid any state religion. They were very in tune with the actions of the Church of Rome, the Church of England, the Lutherans, Puritans, and other Calvinists who were all quite happy establishing a religious/state system that executed those that didn’t fall in line. I disagree with that, and I belong to none of those churches.
I guess if I’m not a Christian, Tom should use the force of government to kill me? I don’t have a right to exist outside his ideals?
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYou need to chill bro. He never said anything like that.
I think that the government set up we have, is probably as good as it is going to get considering we are dealing with fallen humanity.
A time will come though, when Jesus Christ will reign as king, and God's law will prevail, and I look forward to that day.
The Constitution does fall short. But if we were to try to set a theocracy, it would become corrupt by corrupt men. All forms of government will always fall to corruption so long as men are involved
So, I do want the sort of thing that Tom is talking about, I just know it won't really work until Christ is seated as king.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
Libertarianism is a utopian political philosophy with about as much practical application as communism. It relies on a fundamentally faulty view of human nature. Its moral bankruptcy is a non starter in the real world.
You need to chill bro. He never said anything like that.
I think that the government set up we have, is probably as good as it is going to get considering we are dealing with fallen humanity.
A time will come though, when Jesus Christ will reign as king, and God's law will prevail, and I look forward to that day.
The Constitution does fall short. But if we were to try to set a theocracy, it would become corrupt by corrupt men. All forms of government will always fall to corruption so long as men are involved
So, I do want the sort of thing that Tom is talking about, I just know it won't really work until Christ is seated as king.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
Also well said.
I don’t want to speak for jesuvuah, but my assessment would be similar. The difference between what he and I are saying and what Tom is saying is that we acknowledge the foolishness of trying to make that happen by our own hand. He wants to make it happen.
Again, he gave he religious affiliation, and that absolutely and directly influences what he is saying. This is very much an issue of different eschatologies and there is zero point in discussion that in this context.
I guess if I’m not a Christian, Tom should use the force of government to kill me? I don’t have a right to exist outside his ideals?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where do you get this crap from. Are you unable to understand that none of what I said comes by the SWORD? That as God converts people that they change and their govt will change along with them.
An additional question, where does it state god requires you to force others to uphold his law.
What should the worldly punishment be, per god’s word, for failing to uphold the first commandment?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In an actual Chtristian nation the duly empowered magistrate would most likely severely punish a person or persons who for instance tried to set up an Islamic mosque. The magistrate wouldnt be running around as the though police punishing people for thinking bad things. Just like in the days of the righteous kings of Israel some persons couldnt go about setting up a temple to moloch down the street from the temple.
I'm a Christian, but I'm for a secular government. This isn't to say I'm for the forceful removal of religion from all public life, or that public officials need to masquerade as atheists in order to be compliant with the Constitution. But theocracy and theonomy have had a 100% failure rate in terms of protecting rights over the past 2000 years. It's kinda the reason why "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is the very first clause in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. A Christian dictatorship is a recipe for disaster; it will, not can, WILL, be used as a weapon by power hungry despots who claim that, being representatives of God's authority, they are answerable to nobody.
My pastor said it best, I believe: A Republic is the most Christian form of government, because it recognizes that people are sinful, selfish, and corrupt. An ungoverned population cannot be trusted, and neither can an unchecked government. So, though it's still imperfect, the best humanity can manage is a system where both the people and the government answer to each other.
I'm not against a constitutional republic and neither is the bible. The problem is when you deny God's laws and make unbelievers your masters. Secular anything is worthless and your seeing its decay before your eyes. Deny Gods principles for govt and anything else for that matter and watch the disaster unfold. And your wrong about historic theonomy...magistrates that really feared God and listen to the faithful protestant ministers did much to uphold true justice and rights as they understood the idea of rights in the 16th and 17th century.
Where do you get this crap from. Are you unable to understand that none of what I said comes by the SWORD? That as God converts people that they change and their govt will change along with them.
Then what exactly is your problem with the first amendment; which literally exists to allow people to practice the religion you subscribe to?
If the first amendment didn’t exist what would be the punishment for practice outside what you deem fit?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
While he may be a limp-wristed, evangelical heretic, he’s right about libertarianism.
Well, I'm so glad you didnt call me a fag....what's my heresy....consistent biblical thought? The reformers believed these things and I GLADLY and JOYFULLY will stand on their mighty shoulders and bear the shame of their heresies.
Then what exactly is your problem with the first amendment; which literally exists to allow people to practice the religion you subscribe to?
If the first amendment didn’t exist what would be the punishment for practice outside what you deem fit?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because practicing a false religion is sin and God punishes sin, and He punishes nations that practice the sin of idolatry and he punishes magistrates that pass laws that tell people that they are really at liberty to practice false religion.
Crack out that bible you said you've read and read psalm 2.
Thumbs up again...
The resident “lunatic” isn’t actually far off in his assessment of libertarianism, nor is he out of the ordinary in a super strict and traditional interpretation of government. Actually...he is the very reason the founders of this country, and many of the citizens of that time, wanted to avoid any state religion. They were very in tune with the actions of the Church of Rome, the Church of England, the Lutherans, Puritans, and other Calvinists who were all quite happy establishing a religious/state system that executed those that didn’t fall in line. I disagree with that, and I belong to none of those churches.
No doubt part of the waste land of evangelicalism....they just love to have the unbelievers ruling. If you actually looked at the history of England, Ireland and Scotland around the 1630's to the 1650's you'll see that they in huge huge numbers came together voluntarily in covenant and wrote up essentially a constitution in the westminster assembly . They actually had respect for God's sovereign command as opposed to the dumpster fire that's the church today.
Pretty sure the first amendment doesn’t create a law per se, actually stating that the representatives of the people may NOT enact a law respecting an establishment of religions. If we’re parsing things.
Because practicing a false religion is sin and God punishes sin, and He punishes nations that practice the sin of idolatry and he punishes magistrates that pass laws that tell people that they are really at liberty to practice false religion.
What should be the punishment be to me by the state for not practicing your flavor of Christianity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You need to chill bro. He never said anything like that.
I think that the government set up we have, is probably as good as it is going to get considering we are dealing with fallen humanity.
A time will come though, when Jesus Christ will reign as king, and God's law will prevail, and I look forward to that day.
The Constitution does fall short. But if we were to try to set a theocracy, it would become corrupt by corrupt men. All forms of government will always fall to corruption so long as men are involved
So, I do want the sort of thing that Tom is talking about, I just know it won't really work until Christ is seated as king.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
Read Isaiah 2, Gods not finished yet. And Jesus is king right now working all things after the counsel of His will. I Clive to his promise that the church will be united in truth...no denominations. And that great Christian men, full of Gods wisdom, will rise up and truly help the US to be an actual Christian nation.
What should be the punishment be to me by the state for not practicing your flavor of Christianity?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress, made a pretty good speech on freedom of conscience/religion before going to jail for (3?) years, sentenced by none other than...a “magistrate.”
Well, John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress, made a pretty good speech on freedom of conscience/religion before going to jail for (3?) years, sentenced by none other than...a “magistrate.”
Cool. Should somebody go to prison for three years for practice of the wrong flavor of Christianity? What if they continue to after release?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By the way, what year was that? Oh yeah... before the first amendment by all means.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By the way, what year was that? Oh yeah... before the first amendment by all means.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s interesting. A bunch of (sometimes heretical) separatist groups like the Pilgrims moved to America to avoid persecution and set up a Christian society in the New World. Then along came the Puritans right behind them flogging and killing people just like they did in Scotland and England in the English Interegnum that Tom gleefully invokes. They didn’t like them redskins, either, the darn heathen. Or Baptist’s, like that pesky founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams, who got tired of their treatment of him in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Pretty sure the first amendment doesn’t create a law per se, actually stating that the representatives of the people may NOT enact a law respecting an establishment of religions. If we’re parsing things.
It's their version of what rights are...some are good and some are wretched. The 1st telling people, that's them telling people this is a real right from something called nature's god, that you. Can. Have. Any. god. And religion. You want. God and I say, dont listen to that foolishness. It's a lie. There is no such right.
It's their version of what rights are...some are good and some are wretched. The 1st telling people, that's them telling people this is a real right from something called nature's god, that you. Can. Have. Any. god. And religion. You want. God and I say, dont listen to that foolishness. It's a lie. There is no such right.
I don’t have a right not to worship your version of god? What is the the punishment the state should place on me for not believing as you do?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's their version of what rights are...some are good and some are wretched. The 1st telling people, that's them telling people this is a real right from something called nature's god, that you. Can. Have. Any. god. And religion. You want. God and I say, dont listen to that foolishness. It's a lie. There is no such right.
So, how would people be punished for violating the First Commandment under a Theonomy? Per the examples given in the Old Testament, or some other way?
For those curious, Tom’s attitude has a direct lineage going back to St. Augustine, who declared open season on heretics. I went looking for a quote and found this decent blog.
http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/10/augustine-in-defense-of-torturing.html?m=1
I don’t have a right not to worship your version of god? What is the the punishment the state should place on me for not believing as you do?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's what he's saying, yes. I'm interested to hear the answer to the second part of your question.
For those curious, Tom’s attitude has a direct lineage going back to St. Augustine, who declared open season on heretics. I went looking for a quote and found this decent blog.
http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/10/augustine-in-defense-of-torturing.html?m=1
Interesting. Thanks for posting that.
Thanks for posting that.
No problem. Augustine has some amazing stuff, but this aspect has been used by many leaders (the Popes, Calvin, etc) to do incredibly evil, and un-Christian, things. I tend to have a low view of the guy, but a professor I greatly respect has gotten me to acknowledge his other very good work for Christendom. But this is pretty unacceptable.
It’s interesting. A bunch of (sometimes heretical) separatist groups like the Pilgrims moved to America to avoid persecution and set up a Christian society in the New World. Then along came the Puritans right behind them flogging and killing people just like they did in Scotland and England in the English Interegnum that Tom gleefully invokes. They didn’t like them redskins, either, the darn heathen. Or Baptist’s, like that pesky founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams, who got tired of their treatment of him in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
The pilgrims fled to avoid the persecution of the Anglican Arminians ( popery light) being those naughty Calvinists and all. And it wasnt the presbyterians running around killing people they were practically begged to help bring sanity to the church and state.
The pilgrims fled to avoid the persecution of the Anglican Arminians ( popery light) being those naughty Calvinists and all. And it wasnt the presbyterians running around killing people they were practically begged to help bring sanity to the church and state.
If I don’t worship your flavor of Christianity, what should be the punishment brought to me by government?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No problem. Augustine has some amazing stuff, but this aspect has been used by many leaders (the Popes, Calvin, etc) to do incredibly evil, and un-Christian, things. I tend to have a low view of the guy, but a professor I greatly respect has gotten me to acknowledge his other very good work for Christendom. But this is pretty unacceptable.
What was Calvin's great evil his institutes?
No problem. Augustine has some amazing stuff, but this aspect has been used by many leaders (the Popes, Calvin, etc) to do incredibly evil, and un-Christian, things. I tend to have a low view of the guy, but a professor I greatly respect has gotten me to acknowledge his other very good work for Christendom. But this is pretty unacceptable.
Interesting how his views on coercion changed from rejection to embracing and even promoting it.
I don’t suppose I’m going to get an answer.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's what he's saying, yes. I'm interested to hear the answer to the second part of your question.
There Is no punishment by the magistrate for unbelief I've already talked on that. But if you actually commit a crime that's punishable.
I see no consistency with that statement less you believe worshiping differently than you see fit a crime. If so, what is the punishment for that crime?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The pilgrims fled to avoid the persecution of the Anglican Arminians ( popery light) being those naughty Calvinists and all. And it wasnt the presbyterians running around killing people they were practically begged to help bring sanity to the church and state.
There is a marked difference in the history of the Plymouth Bay Colony before being absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Pilgrims were Calvinist, but they were not your standard Puritans. They separated rather than attempting to keep power and reform the Anglican Church itself. The Puritans were fine with power, and set up the ongoing persecutions of Catholics and separatist groups.
I respect the Presbyterians just fine, with my favorite author being one and my church’s government set up under a more bicameral system rather than a straight congregational system. We would all do well to acknowledge that our forebears were flawed. That doesn’t dismiss the good they did any more than holding slaves makes Thomas Jefferson irrelevant. But they weren’t perfect.
EDIT: And some of their ideas and actions were utter crap.
If no punishment for not practicing your flavor of Christianity, then why do you have a problem with the government not stepping in as per the first amendment?
You do realize the purpose of the 1A was to allow free practice of Christianity, right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting how his views on coercion changed from rejection to embracing and even promoting it.
Now you're just bearing false witness.. I never said this comes about by the sword. But once the people are of one mind installing a real and true Christain magistracy....then laws inacted, even unbelievers do that. Everything I have said is what God has said He'll do, not men forcing the issue. The gospel will have its victory, men will change, true unity will prevail, Gods righteous law will be foundational. Do you really think the unbelievers will ever outlaw abortion? It will take a miracle before the slaughter will end, but hey, keep hoping the right bunch of religionists and unbelievers will come along and see the light.
Really the sad part is that you really dont like the idea that Christ would rule over you by His law/word.
Now you're just bearing false witness.. I never said this comes about by the sword. But once the people are of one mind installing a real and true Christain magistracy....then laws inacted, even unbelievers to that. Everything I have said is what God has said He'll do, not men forcing the issue. The gospel will have its victory, men will change, true unity will prevail, Gods righteous law will be foundational. Do you really think the unbelievers will ever outlaw abortion? It will take a miracle before the slaughter will end, but hey, keep hoping the right bunch of religionists and unbelievers will come along and see the light.
I was referring to the article JediGuy posted about St. Augustine's views on persecuting Heretics. That comment was not directed towards, nor about, you.
As I noted earlier, despite my ongoing participation, Mr. Tom’s denominational eschatological views are such that this thread has become entirely pointless and disattached from reality. He genuinely believes that he can create Christ’s reign on earth before Christ returns to reign on earth. To do that requires a theonomy (not a word I’ve ever used before, actually). Nothing will dissuade him of this, which I respect. He has been consistent in his statements overall, and he is not really unorthodox in what he believes.
I just think he is wrong. However, this has devolved far, far from the original topic,
EDIT: I’m not being entirely fair, perhaps. I’m not Presbyterian, and it has been a while since I studied the topic, so I may be misspeaking. However, as I recall, it has been a historical position that they held as a goal setting up a religious kingdom as necessary BEFORE Christ’s return, essentially preparing the way for him. Therefore, thought of in that way, perhaps his views make more sense. But obviously I disagree.
If no punishment for not practicing your flavor of Christianity, then why do you have a problem with the government not stepping in as per the first amendment?
You do realize the purpose of the 1A was to allow free practice of Christianity, right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No it wasnt. It was put there so you could practice moloch worship if you so wished.
Christianity is rent into a thousand pieces. This is about as good as we can expect today. And I'm not advocating that under these conditions that the present magistrate do anything but keep his hands off. What I have presented is where this whole thing fails to measure up to God's commandments. That it is my hope that God fixes His church, unites it and converts whole nations, ours included and then true biblical justice can prevail. People from the past were far from perfect and neither are we, but God did and will work through imperfect men.
So, how would people be punished for violating the First Commandment under a Theonomy? Per the examples given in the Old Testament, or some other way?
What does God say? Keeping in mind that the judicial laws of Israel have past away. And the nation was United in one mind on the subject, it could begin with a fine and end up with prison. It would depend on the mitigating circumstances. It doesn't mean death.
I see no consistency with that statement less you believe worshiping differently than you see fit a crime. If so, what is the punishment for that crime?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it was grievous it could mean prison, maybe worst but not necessarily. Do you believe worshipping false gods is a crime? Who determines what a crime is or isn't? Unbelievers? Is abortion a crime? What belie ers and unbelievers have agreed on is that God isn't the one who determines criminality....oh no...we never let that happen.
I was referring to the article JediGuy posted about St. Augustine's views on persecuting Heretics. That comment was not directed towards, nor about, you.
Ok, I'm having trouble keeping up on my phone.
As I noted earlier, despite my ongoing participation, Mr. Tom’s denominational eschatological views are such that this thread has become entirely pointless and disattached from reality. He genuinely believes that he can create Christ’s reign on earth before Christ returns to reign on earth. To do that requires a theonomy (not a word I’ve ever used before, actually). Nothing will dissuade him of this, which I respect. He has been consistent in his statements overall, and he is not really unorthodox in what he believes.
I just think he is wrong. However, this has devolved far, far from the original topic,
EDIT: I’m not being entirely fair, perhaps. I’m not Presbyterian, and it has been a while since I studied the topic, so I may be misspeaking. However, as I recall, it has been a historical position that they held as a goal setting up a religious kingdom as necessary BEFORE Christ’s return, essentially preparing the way for him. Therefore, thought of in that way, perhaps his views make more sense. But obviously I disagree.
I dont think I or any man can create this, I've said that multiple times. And the bible clearly clearly states that Christ is sitting at His father's right hand ruling .....right.....now. he's God, He doesn't have be on earth to rule. He's omnipresent. I've only stated that the founders disobeyed Christ and ignored, not all, but many biblical principles in the setting up of the republic with the idea of false rights. Again, can anything God has said is sin ever be a right?
Last several pages...wow.
How many people who criticize Sharia Law are now advocating what is basically a theocracy? Sure some are proposing a caveat if "when he comes back", but ultimately they are still talking about the eventual destruction of the bill of rights to be replaced with Gods law.
So they support and defend the Constitution conditionally upon the return of Jesus? So much for inalienable rights. And I wonder, assuming for a moment it actually would happen one day, what would Jesus do with all the Buddhists, Muslims and Shintoists of the world? I'm hoping there is something better in the offering than "convert or perish" or "conversion by the sword."
Also this is exactly the kind of scary crap that makes people vote Democrat. Whenever somebody suggests that the first amendment is "freedom of religion" but not "freedom from religion", well that is another vote for Warren or whatever psycho democrat wins the primary, because very few people want to live in a theocracy, we did that once and it didn't go so well.
People say Libertarianism doesn't work in the real world, please point out to me a successful theocracy, there are still many all over the world and they are horrible places.
Others have questioned your assessment of the first amendment, as have I. I think you fundamentally lack understanding of it, to the point of silliness, as exemplified in your Molech comment.
I believe the Danbury Baptist’s themselves might provide some insight.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/danburybaptists/
I dont think I or any man can create this, I've said that multiple times. And the bible clearly clearly states that Christ is sitting at His father's right hand ruling .....right.....now. he's God, He doesn't have be on earth to rule. He's omnipresent. I've only stated that the founders disobeyed Christ and ignored, not all, but many biblical principles in the setting up of the republic with the idea of false rights. Again, can anything God has said is sin ever be a right?
So one of the commandments is to honor thy mother and father correct? To disobey a commandment would be a sin? So what happens when your father is Charles Manson or your mother is Bernadine Dohrn? Do you go to hell because you cut ties with a vicious psychopath?
Also "false rights"? Effin hell dude, that is as scary as anything coming from the middle east. The founding fathers deliberately didn't establish a theocracy, it wasn't an accidental omission. And that leaves you to believe some pretty scary ideas, but thankfully it keeps me free of some of your pretty scary ideas.
Steyr, this is a fundamental Christian belief. Lots of people don’t like it, obviously.
Consider that this is a description of a situation in which a deity is literally on earth and in charge. In such a situation, one wonders who would choose not to willingly follow instructions from that deity, considering...deity. Even considering that, it is clear that not all do so, which does not necessarily result in punishment for those people.
That should give no one cause for concern, unless they dislike the possibility of a deity at all. The resident “lunatic” takes this to a point in which humans are dictating the religious observances of other humans, which is not a good thing, as you point out.
This was being typed before your solid comment on Mr. Tom’s less than ideal ideas.
Others have questioned your assessment of the first amendment, as have I. I think you fundamentally lack understanding of it, to the point of silliness, as exemplified in your Molech comment.
I believe the Danbury Baptist’s themselves might provide some insight.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/danburybaptists/
I've read it. My comment still stands. The idea that 1st only somehow related to Christian sects just isn't true. Since some of them weren't even remotely Christian, like Jefferson himself. I think GW assured the muslims that the US's laws were not hostile in the least to their religion.
The title of the thread is “We Need To Do Better,” which I find amusing at this point. I feel like I’ve helped turn this into one of the fundamentalist forums I avoid.
I've read it. My comment still stands. The idea that 1st only somehow related to Christian sects just isn't true. Since some of them weren't even remotely Christian, like Jefferson himself. I think GW assured the muslims that the US's laws were not hostile in the least to their religion.
That was Jefferson discussing how it isn’t possible to distinguish how the right necessarily made equal protection for Christiam sects without including Mohammedans and Hindoos.
And, I’m out.
Just saw that you added this while I was typing my reply. You pretend to know the contents of my heart and mind? Give me a break.
It shows in your hostility to the idea that Christ and His law/word should be named as the king of our nation and His law the foundation of our laws.
That was Jefferson discussing how it isn’t possible to distinguish how the right necessarily made equal protection for Christiam sects without including Mohammedans and Hindoos.
I guess George didnt get the memo. Im not aware of any official document from the period that the delegates put their name to that narrows the right to Christian sects and excludes other religions.
MountainRaven
11-12-19, 00:07
Nevermind. I'm done.
He claims to know God's will. Reading the minds and hearts of mortal men is small beans compared to that.
Last several pages...wow.
How many people who criticize Sharia Law are now advocating what is basically a theocracy? Sure some are proposing a caveat if "when he comes back", but ultimately they are still talking about the eventual destruction of the bill of rights to be replaced with Gods law.
So they support and defend the Constitution conditionally upon the return of Jesus? So much for inalienable rights. And I wonder, assuming for a moment it actually would happen one day, what would Jesus do with all the Buddhists, Muslims and Shintoists of the world? I'm hoping there is something better in the offering than "convert or perish" or "conversion by the sword."
Also this is exactly the kind of scary crap that makes people vote Democrat. Whenever somebody suggests that the first amendment is "freedom of religion" but not "freedom from religion", well that is another vote for Warren or whatever psycho democrat wins the primary, because very few people want to live in a theocracy, we did that once and it didn't go so well.
People say Libertarianism doesn't work in the real world, please point out to me a successful theocracy, there are still many all over the world and they are horrible places.
What's your definition of theocracy?
What's your definition of theocracy?
It's not my definition of "theocracy" it's the long accepted definition. Go ask Webster.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy
the·oc·ra·cy | \ thē-ˈä-krə-sē How to pronounce theocracy (audio) \
plural theocracies
Definition of theocracy
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy
Edit: I'm out.
He claims to know God's will. Reading the minds and hearts of mortal men is small beans compared to that.
I didnt read his mind I read his words. And I've spoken what I've seen in Gods word and studied other believers words over the last 30 years. What do you have to offer if only we were better libertarians/democratics/republicans or whatever, we wouldnt be in this mess. Press on I'm sure it will work out well.
It's not my definition of "theocracy" it's the long accepted definition. Go ask Webster.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy
the·oc·ra·cy | \ thē-ˈä-krə-sē How to pronounce theocracy (audio) \
plural theocracies
Definition of theocracy
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy
The first part I dont advocate. The second part is so broad that any president or senator or rep who says i read my bible and determined abortion should be outlawed is a theocrat.
So one of the commandments is to honor thy mother and father correct? To disobey a commandment would be a sin? So what happens when your father is Charles Manson or your mother is Bernadine Dohrn? Do you go to hell because you cut ties with a vicious psychopath?
Also "false rights"? Effin hell dude, that is as scary as anything coming from the middle east. The founding fathers deliberately didn't establish a theocracy, it wasn't an accidental omission. And that leaves you to believe some pretty scary ideas, but thankfully it keeps me free of some of your pretty scary ideas.
I doubt you really want an answer but here goes. We honor in the sense that even though they a somehow horrible, God put them over us for a time. Think of it as honoring the office. It's not a commandment that requires us to not take into account depravity.
Why be scared, I dont think abortion is a right, or sodomy is a right. You should know by now that I dont think blaspheming God is a right. So what, is there even one person on here that thinks like me, and I've sworn off violence to get to this end. Can you say the same for all the people talking about civil war?
Steyr, this is a fundamental Christian belief. Lots of people don’t like it, obviously.
Consider that this is a description of a situation in which a deity is literally on earth and in charge. In such a situation, one wonders who would choose not to willingly follow instructions from that deity, considering...deity. Even considering that, it is clear that not all do so, which does not necessarily result in punishment for those people.
That should give no one cause for concern, unless they dislike the possibility of a deity at all. The resident “lunatic” takes this to a point in which humans are dictating the religious observances of other humans, which is not a good thing, as you point out.
This was being typed before your solid comment on Mr. Tom’s less than ideal ideas.
You must be kidding me. I am describing a future where instead of men running wild, that God who promised this causes people to willing come together to form a Christian nation under His law. The vast majority will WILLING submit to Christ in heaven. If 90% of a nation believes that Gods law is the best way, do they have the right to do that? Did the ancient Israelites really screw up by actually obeying God in the times of say Josiah, whom God said he did right in my eyes.
To all you Christians... do you really think the wisdom of this world is going to make it all better? The wisdom God said is worthless?
When the Apostle Paul said in 1 Cor 1:10 to have the same judgement and say the same things, what he really meant was create a bunch of different denominations believing all kinds of different things, work on more schism? Did the Father ignore His son in John 17 when Christ prayed that we would all be united in the truth, all of the truth. I know that will never happen because He was ignored...right.
In Psalm 2 did God really warn the kings of the earth to obey His messiah, I guess not.
Are Gods promises in Isaiah 2 void now?
The SBC is falling apart riddled with ever more false teachers and sjw, Independent mega churches are designed for goats not sheep, the Episcipol and PCUSA are sex cults and we wonder why these darn Democrats are out get us....maybe it's because judgement begins in the house of God. I'm guilty too.
If it was grievous it could mean prison, maybe worst but not necessarily. Do you believe worshipping false gods is a crime? Who determines what a crime is or isn't? Unbelievers? Is abortion a crime? What belie ers and unbelievers have agreed on is that God isn't the one who determines criminality....oh no...we never let that happen.
Let this sink in, folks. This guy wants people who worship differently then him thrown in “prison...or worse”.
RIGHT F!CKING THERE!
So what version of Christianity is the right one? I assume your flavor is the only right one and the other flavors should potentially be reprimanded and face prison because they aren’t Presbyterian, which I assume you are.
News for you, that is tyranny. If you and your kind ever come to power, I hope we treat you just like we did the fundamentalist Muslims that want to kill people for not worshiping what they believe to be the true religion.
And you wonder why Christianity is on the decline in this country? And the world? It’s because people hear whack-jobs like yourself that think we should kill people that worship differently than you see fit.
If nothing else, you’ve earned the block I’m gonna give you. It takes a special kind of but-job to get that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No it wasnt. It was put there so you could practice moloch worship if you so wished.
Christianity is rent into a thousand pieces. This is about as good as we can expect today. And I'm not advocating that under these conditions that the present magistrate do anything but keep his hands off. What I have presented is where this whole thing fails to measure up to God's commandments. That it is my hope that God fixes His church, unites it and converts whole nations, ours included and then true biblical justice can prevail. People from the past were far from perfect and neither are we, but God did and will work through imperfect men.
Yes, it actually was. Do you not remember your history or the context?
If rounding up people that believe differently and putting them in “prison...or worse” is the goal of Christianity and god, then I cannot subscribe to either of them as that is no kind of religion or god I would be affiliated with. In fact, I would say it should be eliminated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This thread is going to age really poorly if it turns out there's no God....
Gosh, this thread sure did take a bizarre turn.
Yes, it actually was. Do you not remember your history or the context?
If rounding up people that believe differently and putting them in “prison...or worse” is the goal of Christianity and god, then I cannot subscribe to either of them as that is no kind of religion or god I would be affiliated with. In fact, I would say it should be eliminated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And after reading your insights and view of history I'm sure that's exactly what you'll do....work to eliminate Christianity and people like me.
And after reading your insights and view of history I'm sure that's exactly what you'll do....work to eliminate Christianity and people like me.
Not at all. Just those that want to impose their will on others. In closing, you’re blocked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gosh, this thread sure did take a bizarre turn.
You're right...it time to get back to the really important stuff like...how if everyone became a libertarian or if Republicans became Democrats on social issues or if we could just get more conservative judges the republic would be saved from the onslaught of socialists cramping our gun style and stealing our money.
This thread is going to age really poorly if it turns out there's no God....
It won't matter because nothing will matter or have any real meaning, the universe will eventually swallow us up. In the mean time we should all play the existentialist lest we go insane. Pretending is fun.
Not at all. Just those that want to impose their will on others. In closing, you’re blocked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The poor sap doesn't even realize he's actually contradicted himself.
Outlander Systems
11-12-19, 10:40
Cuckservatives are the most vile creatures on the planet. At least the Left is naked in its evil. The Cuckservative's avarice above all else is truly awe inspiring. The culture can descend into a "socially liberal," literal abject hellscape, but as long as "muh GDP" is high it's all good in the hood.
You're right...it time to get back to the really important stuff like...how if everyone became a libertarian or if Republicans became Democrats on social issues or if we could just get more conservative judges the republic would be saved from the onslaught of socialists cramping our gun style and stealing our money.
The poor sap doesn't even realize he's actually contradicted himself.
Not at all. You’re going to use lethal force to impose your will on others; people that want to simply be left alone. The minute you do so, we stop you. Simple as that. You leave people alone, you get left alone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
11-12-19, 12:12
"Muh NAP, dude"
Lolbertarians truly are pathetic.
Not at all. You’re going to use lethal force to impose your will on others; people that want to simply be left alone. The minute you do so, we stop you. Simple as that. You leave people alone, you get left alone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Muh NAP, dude"
Lolbertarians truly are pathetic.
Please, explain to me the value of “prison...or worse” because somebody who is doing no harm to another human being.
If you think it’s “pathetic” to refrain from rounding up people who don’t subscribe to your religion and putting them in “prison..or worse” I’m all ears to hear your justification.
Until then, I guess you have no problem with others’ holy wars?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
11-12-19, 15:51
I can assure you, that with the direction that this thread has taken, no, we really can't do any better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O8J2locx5o
Wow.
Once upon a time in my reading adventures I stumbled across an interesting series of books about a right-wing revolution in America, and a major theme behind the main plot was how they had to work hard to "keep religion out of it" because otherwise the whole endeavor would have be overthrown by those who can never cease to endlessly squabble about how their version is the right one, or how the only form of government needed was "King Jesus"...
Like many things I've read over the years, I thought it was crazy. Surely if the situation was dire enough to start a shooting war over we'd have much bigger issues to occupy our time than personal religious trifles.
In the years after that I've learned better, to my chagrin and endless disappointment; this thread is merely the latest case study on that topic.
I grew up in a highly religious environment; some would say "cult", but I'd differ on that term. Regardless, I've seen the insanity. It's the same as the left; the definition of "right" and "acceptable" and "moral" changes by the week, and by the group you associate with, and no two groups can agree, so they inevitably split constantly like some sort of psychotic amoebas that then turn back and eat themselves over even pettier "tests of faith" until they split again.
For the life of me I could never understand why so many of the people I used to know in that environment went so hard left after leaving, as if they couldn't help but go back to feeding on the only thing they knew.
But then, maybe they met some of the people here... who knows.
Regardless, if there was to be a re-arrangement, of government, I wouldn't let the religious anywhere near the levers of power any more than I'd let the communists/socialists. It would be just as disastrous. There's a damn good reason why we have "separation of church and state"...
Granted, lest I be called hypocritical given previous comments, yes, there MUST be a set of overarching ideals and morals that a society cohesively agrees on and adheres to in order to be cohesive. This current blight of not only partaking in absolute degeneracy, but REVELING in it like beetles in shit and demanding everyone else join in can only be met, fought, or counterbalanced by the righteous anger that is currently so lacking on "the right".
But there's also GOT to be a limit to the religious moralizing, just like you have to define a limit to a conquest lest the enemy turn and bite you back and undo all you've gained.
And I'm sure you can understand that when I say "righteous" anger I mean that little flame of fury you feel when something's not right, NOT a bunch of "wrath'o God" endless theocratic nonsense...
Anyway...to re-quote the relevant portion of this thread from a few pages back;
There is no "WE"...We’re all just here because we like guns
Outlander Systems
11-12-19, 17:16
Mankind’s problems aren’t political in nature; thusly, by seeking political salvation, you’re effectively setting this entire thing up to be another rinse and repeat.
Outlander Systems
11-12-19, 17:24
Mankind’s problems aren’t political in nature; thusly by seeking political salvation, you’re effectively setting this entire thing up to be another rinse and repeat
Outlander Systems
11-12-19, 17:24
Mankind’s problems aren’t political in nature; thusly by seeking political salvation, you’re effectively setting this entire thing up to be another rinse and repeat
Mankind’s problems aren’t political in nature; thusly by seeking political salvation, you’re effectively setting this entire thing up to be another rinse and repeat
^^^^^This.
Y’all been whining about Religion and nobody cares.
Grow a goatee
Get laid
Get a Lincoln Convertible
Blast 90s Riot GRRL anthems so loud as to be an affront to the Heavens
Life gets much easier when you do that
Y’all been whining about Religion and nobody cares.
Grow a goatee
Get laid
Get a Lincoln Convertible
Blast 90s Riot GRRL anthems so loud as to be an affront to the Heavens
Life gets much easier when you do thatSo you basically just told us how to find you...
I don't disagree one bit. Cept a full beard, and whatever 90s ride you want.
Averageman
11-12-19, 21:31
How to assure you will frack this up again?
Impose your religion on the rest of us.
Back off, basic playground rules and a simple but equal set of laws and taxes.
The rest of your idyllic homeland is going to be a nightmare.
I'm a Mono-Theistic Evolutionist who believes in a Supreme Being (God), but I don't fit into any organized religion. I think the Book of Genesis and the Creation story is kind of a simplified Cliff Notes of what happened. A story which gives the average goat herder concepts to grasp without getting too scientific. You know - Let there be light, and there was light = The Big Bang.
I'm not the Square peg trying to fit into a round hole - I'm a Trapezoid, which make me totally unfit for traditional denominations. I also question the business aspect of organized religion - Church Members = Customers with money.
Now, what was this thread about? Oh yes, doing better. In 2019, I am buying AR/M16 parts and assembling weapons this year, plus building up my supply of M193 for 1/12 barrels. I consider this doing better.
Mankind’s problems aren’t political in nature; thusly by seeking political salvation, you’re effectively setting this entire thing up to be another rinse and repeatYou can say that again. And again.
Mozart, I’m sorry your thread sucks.
I got tuberculosis from reading this stuff, and also went blind.
TomMcC, your degree of religious fervor is in the realm normally reserved for the mentally ill, and you should go to Saudi Arabia to enjoy your Sharia fantasies.
I can assure you, that with the direction that this thread has taken, no, we really can't do any better.
Y’all been whining about Religion and nobody cares.
Grow a goatee
Get laid
Get a Lincoln Convertible
Blast 90s Riot GRRL anthems so loud as to be an affront to the Heavens
Life gets much easier when you do that
Y’all are correct, mostly.
Outlander Systems
11-13-19, 08:20
I will say it again.
Culture radiates outward from the people. We have a vile, toxic culture that embraces vulgarity and perversity. When I turn on a football game, and have to sit through a half-hour of a literal ****ing Satanic ritual at half time, there's something fundamentally flawed in terms of culture. Whether you want to call our sickness, "spiritual" or "cultural" can be a choice for your personal worldview. The OP basically asserted some extremely milquetoast views on the current state of the polity.
I, personally do care about social issues.
From the OP:
The LGBTQ stuff . . . . the only proper response, and the response that takes sound-bytes away from leftist propagandists, is WHO CARES.
Here's the problem with Boomer, so-called, "Conservatism." You people have conserved absolutely nothing. Zilch. Goose-egg. Nada. You've sacrificed our culture upon the altar of muh GDP. Literally re-read the OP; it's peak boomerism. Nothing matters, as long as the big bad government doesn't raise taxes. The only takeaway I get from "Conservatives" is that it's the established religion of cupidity. Full stop.
You feckless, absolutely craven cowards allowed the culture to be hollowed out for our progeny, all for the sake of your cozy retirement. That's your legacy. That's how "Conservatism" will be remembered.
You can say that again. And again.
I’m not knocking God. I love God.
I’m just saying some folks keep bringing up religion like they are the Christian Taliban acting like every small thing is akin to people throwing orgies under a golden calf.
Per “conservatives”. They really have not conserved squat.
Not money, not lives, not societal mores.
Just selling wooden nickels.
Dems F you from the front, but Repubs F you from the rear. Which is really better? You still getting tore up like a 14 yo Pinoy whore on payday.
I just don’t care anymore. Whatever happens, happens.
Western civilization has everything to do with Christianity. To not see the good of the religion is falling for the programming and propaganda of the left.
I see the good, and I am not a Churchian.
This is the best attempt thus far. Yet, the Marxists subverted it and ruined it. As great as the U.S. constitution is, it was not air-tight as it could be and parasites' abused it. I'm talking about the welfare rats, the politicians, the banks, etc.
I have been looking into Propertarianism and their proposal on a new constitution. Seems like a more airtight government and a better way into the future.
If we DO see a reset in this lifetime, it would be foolish not to create something better so we wouldn't be repeating the same thing again, and again.
Averageman
11-13-19, 16:01
You don't get it if you think that only your god and your region are going to save America and if you don't ease up on that a bit you're part of the problem, not the answer when it comes to fixing things.
That fundamentalist, "My Way or The Highway" attitude empties pews and hearts, it certainly doesn't fill them. I'm not asking you to compromise your personal religious beliefs, I'm begging you to not impose your beliefs on me or my government.
This wont end well.
Outlander Systems
11-13-19, 16:03
Enjoy the continued descent into Weimerica.
You don't get it if you think that only your god and your region are going to save America and if you don't ease up on that a bit you're part of the problem, not the answer when it comes to fixing things.
That fundamentalist, "My Way or The Highway" attitude empties pews and hearts, it certainly doesn't fill them. I'm not asking you to compromise your personal religious beliefs, I'm begging you to not impose your beliefs on me or my government.
This wont end well.
Averageman
11-13-19, 16:05
Enjoy the continued descent into Weimerica.
Or enjoy the new American version of the Taliban instead?
This never ends well.
The most intolerance wins.
The tolerance thing betrays America.
Outlander Systems
11-13-19, 16:31
Hyperbolic much?
I don’t think anyone here is arguing for Christian “Sharia.” As well, you never see too many bishops lopping off heads. Equating a restoration of some kind of cultural/spiritual revival into an era of absolute debauchery and hedonism with Muh American Taliban, is both peak cringe, and cartoonishly sensationalist.
For everyone in here rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over the only actual solution to the current downward trajectory of western civilization, the fact of the matter remains that what you’re currently experiencing, in terms of cultural degeneration is directly related to the absence of some kind of higher meaning and guiding principle. The cultural morass we currently inhabit is a direct result of neo-liberal Platonism. If you wanted Libertarianism, you damn sure got it, in spades, in the social sphere.
Or enjoy the new American version of the Taliban instead?
This never ends well.
Averageman
11-13-19, 17:31
I've seen what small isolated single religion communities become, it's not good.
Although Judeo Christian values may be an excellent place to start when it comes to founding a nation, it's not a good place to halt all forward progress.
As a guide to live your life, good as a guide to rule the lives of all others, not so good.
Hyperbolic much?
I don’t think anyone here is arguing for Christian “Sharia.” As well, you never see too many bishops lopping off heads. Equating a restoration of some kind of cultural/spiritual revival into an era of absolute debauchery and hedonism with Muh American Taliban, is both peak cringe, and cartoonishly sensationalist.
For everyone in here rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over the only actual solution to the current downward trajectory of western civilization, the fact of the matter remains that what you’re currently experiencing, in terms of cultural degeneration is directly related to the absence of some kind of higher meaning and guiding principle. The cultural morass we currently inhabit is a direct result of neo-liberal Platonism. If you wanted Libertarianism, you damn sure got it, in spades, in the social sphere.
I endorse this post.
In terms of LGBTA. we sure are pandering to less than 15% of the population.
Last night I watched a commercial for upcoming Showtimer series, and they are doing nothing but celebrating the brave new world of LGBTA.
Somehow I don't think the SNL 'It's Pat' sketches would fly today.
I’m feeling punchy. I will call a spade a spade.
Yes American demographics are shifting.
No you cannot stop it.
Demographics shifted once before. Lotsa Red folks with their own sorta homogeneous collectives just living life and chilling.
Then some Europeans drop anchor and there goes the neighborhood. Oh effing well.
I doubt my sorry ass is even going to be around in 20 tears. I’m not immortal.
I am just going to live my life. I’m not going to let anything bother me.
If anyone needs me, I’ll be the big ass dude in the track suit, eating Migos chips, drinking OJ and Vodka and shooting dice with the fellas behind the haji shop in the ghetto. That’s when I am not cavorting with wild women or shooting my guns.
Peace
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.