View Full Version : John Lovell's Tyranny Test
I've been stuck in a hotel room out of town on and off for the last several months. Lots of free time. I've been watching John's stuff for a number of years and I enjoy his sense of humor, and appreciate his candor and point of view. Some of his videos have been educational for me, some are thought provoking, and some just entertaining.
For years (Since Bill Clinton's days) I have been pondering how far gone we are as a country. What is "the line"? What is the "point of no return". When have "they" over stepped their bounds just a little (or a lot) too far? John has answered my question. One of his best videos yet. I'd like anyone here to legitimately argue any of his presented points. I would argue that we are, right now, under the heel of a fully tyrannical government, supported by mass media, big tech, Hollywood, and private billionaires.
I still struggle with what to do about it, but it appears the happy, carefree days of wanting to be left alone are quickly coming to an end. For your viewing pleasure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVzS7Z0lE0o
I've been stuck in a hotel room out of town on and off for the last several months. Lots of free time. I've been watching John's stuff for a number of years and I enjoy his sense of humor, and appreciate his candor and point of view. Some of his videos have been educational for me, some are thought provoking, and some just entertaining.
For years (Since Bill Clinton's days) I have been pondering how far gone we are as a country. What is "the line"? What is the "point of no return". When have "they" over stepped their bounds just a little (or a lot) too far? John has answered my question. One of his best videos yet. I'd like anyone here to legitimately argue any of his presented points. I would argue that we are, right now, under the heel of a fully tyrannical government, supported by mass media, big tech, Hollywood, and private billionaires.
I still struggle with what to do about it, but it appears the happy, carefree days of wanting to be left alone are quickly coming to an end. For your viewing pleasure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVzS7Z0lE0o
Agreed.
WillieThom
03-31-21, 15:53
Big fan of WPS. He is a man that’s got it figured out. If only there were more men/fathers like him out there....
That was outstanding...thank you for sharing.
Straight Shooter
03-31-21, 17:24
So, Im gonna watch that in a bit..huge fan of Johns for a long time now.
But, Ive asked that question so many times...here & elsewhere. And each person has a different veiwpoint.
Mine has changed somewhat due to me becoming a Christian & wanting to avoid bloodshed as much as possible- but I WHOLLY believe we really are past due for some kind of action. My Lord at NO point told me to sit back & take what these sick, evil Satanic sons-of-bitches are trying to pull on me, you & America...the world even. i WONT be disarmed, or told I cant go to worship, or sing at worship, or have gatherings in my home, or go to gatherings, or ANY of the shit Ive seen over the last year. In just ONE YEAR..less even..all this and much much more was done in parts of the United States of America. Now..SCOTUS debated letting cops go into YOUR HOME, without a warrant..for "wellness checks"? NO. THEY WILL NOT.
So yes, everyones line is different, some dont even have one. Looking forward to seeing this later tonight.
Excellent video. John nailed it.
I've been stuck in a hotel room out of town on and off for the last several months. Lots of free time. I've been watching John's stuff for a number of years and I enjoy his sense of humor, and appreciate his candor and point of view. Some of his videos have been educational for me, some are thought provoking, and some just entertaining.
For years (Since Bill Clinton's days) I have been pondering how far gone we are as a country. What is "the line"? What is the "point of no return". When have "they" over stepped their bounds just a little (or a lot) too far? John has answered my question. One of his best videos yet. I'd like anyone here to legitimately argue any of his presented points. I would argue that we are, right now, under the heel of a fully tyrannical government, supported by mass media, big tech, Hollywood, and private billionaires.
I still struggle with what to do about it, but it appears the happy, carefree days of wanting to be left alone are quickly coming to an end. For your viewing pleasure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVzS7Z0lE0o
Well the first legit argument I have is the video is still up, the presenter hasn't been arrested and sent to reeducation camp and all of those things. But that doesn't mean everything is just fine either.
Well the first legit argument I have is the video is still up, the presenter hasn't been arrested and sent to reeducation camp and all of those things. But that doesn't mean everything is just fine either.
As usual, you are right. Things could be worse...
kaiservontexas
03-31-21, 20:01
Well the first legit argument I have is the video is still up, the presenter hasn't been arrested and sent to reeducation camp and all of those things. But that doesn't mean everything is just fine either.
The question folks have is do we wait for that point to begin, or go before that time arrives?
I have no answer, i have been looking back and seeing old ads for things and watching “The Highwaymen” and that gun store scene, just makes me weep. The freedom so many struggled to obtain for all of us to be able to shop like that at a gun shop and other rights, such as posting whatever lecture video series you deem fit to publish, just makes me weep.
I like John and his shooting oriented vids. I find it ironic that John speaks of the the Constitution as the highest law in the land and then quotes from the 10 commandments. John's a Christian too...sigh.
I agree with Steyr...this isn't Nazi Germany, the USSR, or ComChi...yet. We're more like the soft flakey Europeans. Will it get worse, probably. Will people fight, I don't know. People can be unpredictable in many ways. Where's that line in the sand? Haven't got there yet, and I'm not itchy to start shooting people. Like one person here said. who do I shoot first, second etc. John was right though, we are tyrannizing.
The question folks have is do we wait for that point to begin, or go before that time arrives?
We've all been stuck in that "awkward time" on and off since before I was born. I remember when it was definitely gonna happen before the turn of the century. I remember in 79 when people thought Ted Kennedy might actually get the nomination.
WillieThom
04-01-21, 02:41
I like John and his shooting oriented vids. I find it ironic that John speaks of the the Constitution as the highest law in the land and then quotes from the 10 commandments. John's a Christian too...sigh.
I agree with Steyr...this isn't Nazi Germany, the USSR, or ComChi...yet. We're more like the soft flakey Europeans. Will it get worse, probably. Will people fight, I don't know. People can be unpredictable in many ways. Where's that line in the sand? Haven't got there yet, and I'm not itchy to start shooting people. Like one person here said. who do I shoot first, second etc. John was right though, we are tyrannizing.
In the context in which he is speaking.... and context is key, here.... it IS the highest—or supreme—law of the land.
Well, everyone's waiting for the boxcars to get broken out for tyranny to OFFICIALLY kick in.
The wars we've been fighting/will be fighting aren't last centuries' wars. The tyranny we're currently in the process of experiencing being installed won't be last century's tyranny.
The left ain't stupid.
You can already see that the crap they enact is always done in such away where it's 'not worth fighting over'....and yet it keeps happening over and over and over and everyone justifies doing nothing because they THINK "oh, this one thing isn't a big deal, it's not time to do anything yet."
The propaganda machine has done a fine job of dragging everyone down into the same straws-eye narrow view of events the left themselves take, and so people have been conned into thinking today's issue are all there is.
They've forgotten all about yesterdays issues that 'weren't bad enough yet' to care about, nor do most people fathom in any way what today's issues being implemented mean for tomorrow.
So here we are... it's all been piling up for years with hardly a whimper of [serious 'no, FU'] protest, and now the things either being implemented as we sit here, or about to be implemented, ARE things that people should be viewing as that 'line in the sand', especially in light of everything that already exists.
But still, nothing will happen to curb the onrush of tyrannical bullshit, because people still think "eh, it's not that bad yet, I can plug my nose and comply some more".
Since we're on a gun forum, take the gun issues. They'll never institute a ban + confiscation. Why? Because they're not stupid and they know such a penultimate gungrab is the ONE scenario everyone in the 2A has been psyched up to fight over if ever implemented.
They'll just legislate the shit out of everything related to it, then how they're stored, then deleting your right to ever use them in self defense, etc, etc, and AT NO POINT will ANY of it be something people will find worth fighting it out over. It's just one more thing to comply with TODAY, never mind the existing plethora of onerous laws, or that tomorrow they'll be right back with several new ones.
TODAY, well, alright, I guess I'll pull the guts out of my one very neutered rifle I've been magnanimously allowed to register and keep before I lock it up in my mandatory gov approved safe I was forced to buy at great personal expense, then count the brass for the 50 rounds of ammo I'm allowed to own to prevent ammo hoarding, because we all know anyone with over 50 rounds is a terrorist, so that tomorrow I can present said 50 pieces of brass at the local shop, then present multiple forms of ID, fill out a form, pay for a background check and a 200% tax on my next box of 50 rounds that I will have to wait 14 days to take home.
I can't see anyone pitching a fit over any of that, can you?
Sure, the author of the video isn't going to gulag TODAY for being bad comrade...and likely they never will have anything that overt happen to them either. They'll just slowly get squeezed into a smaller and smaller corner through content restrictions and de platforming and then one day they will disappear. Again, people have fallen back into 'today's issues' - oh, he's still on youtube, everything's fine.
But its not. People are still getting restricted and deplatformed all over (their favored new method of lawfare is "copyright strike" that they can't ever explain, as well as demonetization).
Has anyone noticed where Fox news has been relegated to on YT these days? That was a very recent change... They're enemy propaganda now after all (no, seriously, some journo wrote an article about it, that's not me being dramatic).
The only reason folks like Lovell are allowed on there anymore is they are simply to big and to mainstream to boot off entirely; once they no longer need the view-driven shekels, or they get a fresh wave of virtue signalling bug up their ass, the second Great Youtube Purge will happen, and that will be that. All it will take is one maniac to post something from a gun channel on their soc-media page, and it's over. Especially if they're a superbad Dumestic Ter'rist type.
The last attempted gun-content purge over there a couple years back was barely avoided once YT realized their platform was still too people-driven and they'd lose massive revenue if they drove that many viewers away all at once, plus their terms for content to be nuked were too broad, and so pissed off everyone instead of what they thought was a small section of content.
They'll do better next time (hence why they're starting to lean towards becoming more of a mainstream hosting platform). Meanwhile the net outcome is incessant lawfare against content creators of all stripes, and a virtue signalling nerf of their algorithm to prevent 'radicalization'.
Don't even get me started on Twitter/Facebook and Google. Even Bitchute is starting to have issues.
And social media is only about half the assault on the 1A.
Then there's everything else; the corpo-government complex, the economy, the border, the ongoing [and expanding] COVID compliance-cult tyranny, the unending parade of BS social issues and the blatant undermining and perversion of, well, everything, the targeted riots/lawfare, oh, and now they've ensconced themselves in a 'forever green zone', are calling everyone they don't like terrorists, and are currently trying to purge and subvert your military.
This is totally not how every great evil empire they write history books about later gets started. Nope, nothing to see here.
It's all a grand joke really, if you think about it.
Look at the reasons we decided to separate from Britain, compared to where we are today; those reasons are almost laughably petty now.
But even then, nobody was carting off the populations of various 'rebel' towns to death valley or some other siberian-esque gulag.
In fact, given a large portion of the colonies' population managed to stay well out of that conflict, and absent a real life-or-death reason to fight, one could say it was about the same situation we're in today (better actually). It was just those pesky domestic rebels causing all the trouble.
It's just a little tax is all... they just wanted the cannons, not your musket...
We're likely about to get national kung-flu passports installed, and once that happens, there will be nothing left that they can't do [to you].
And nobody will care; well, it's not that big a deal, after all we're still the most free nation on earth...
:rolleyes:
Per "today's issues";
https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/omn5g1kixu951-576x1024.jpg
{Gulag Archipelago, IIRC}
We're likely about to get national kung-flu passports installed, and once that happens, there will be nothing left that they can't do [to you].
And nobody will care; well, it's not that big a deal, after all we're still the most free nation on earth...
:rolleyes:
Honestly, under Bush 43, with a Republican majority in the house and senate, the SCOTUS ruled that eminent domain can be applied for PRIVATE USE if it can be demonstrated that there is potential positive outcomes for the public at large.
The case was state of Florida engaging in land grabs of coastal private property so that they could develop hotels and casinos. At the time it was the most BLATANT violation of the Constitution despite specific wording to the contrary.
Nobody came out guns blazing. No justices were tarred, feathered and sent on there way. In fact most people didn't know it even happened and those who did mostly didn't understand the big deal or why it was even important.
Ruling like that get us rulings like this with the same dependable complacency. And of course by then it's kinda too late.
Now every once in awhile they overstep and have to walk things back a little. Sadly it's usually absurd stuff like arm braces.
Honestly, under Bush 43, with a Republican majority in the house and senate, the SCOTUS ruled that eminent domain can be applied for PRIVATE USE if it can be demonstrated that there is potential positive outcomes for the public at large.
The case was state of Florida engaging in land grabs of coastal private property so that they could develop hotels and casinos. At the time it was the most BLATANT violation of the Constitution despite specific wording to the contrary.
Nobody came out guns blazing. No justices were tarred, feathered and sent on there way. In fact most people didn't know it even happened and those who did mostly didn't understand the big deal or why it was even important.
Ruling like that get us rulings like this with the same dependable complacency. And of course by then it's kinda too late.
Now every once in awhile they overstep and have to walk things back a little. Sadly it's usually absurd stuff like arm braces.
You bring up a good point. This isn't so much about Left or Right, as it is about tyranny, regardless of the clothes it wears. Just because someone says they're your friend, doesn't make it so. Bush and the other RINOS are very much as part of the problem as the overt leftists.
Well, everyone's waiting for the boxcars to get broken out for tyranny to OFFICIALLY kick in.
The wars we've been fighting/will be fighting aren't last centuries' wars. The tyranny we're currently in the process of experiencing being installed won't be last century's tyranny.
The left ain't stupid.
I see and wholeheartedly agree with every point in your entire post. The quote from your second post is truly haunting and deadly accurate.
So why aren't YOU dead or in prison for trying to fight it? We all see it. We all know exactly what it is and exactly how they are doing it. What will it take to get YOU out of your house and into the streets to stop it?
We can point to episodes of government abuse going unchecked, like Steyr's example, or the Branch Davidians, but not much talk about Cliven Bundy. I don't even know how all that ended up. I just know that the feds, at least at one point, backed off. Then we see what Timothy McVeigh decided to do about it all. Are there lessons in these atrocities?
We all know there is a major problem, but what is the solution? You've done an excellent job of shining a spotlight on their current activities and their future plans, now how do we stop them? Clearly voting en masse is completely ineffective now. What do we do?
You bring up a good point. This isn't so much about Left or Right, as it is about tyranny, regardless of the clothes it wears. Just because someone says they're your friend, doesn't make it so. Bush and the other RINOS are very much as part of the problem as the overt leftists.
I completely agree. Two sides of the same counterfeit coin, and why both sides hated and vilified Trump.
In the context in which he is speaking.... and context is key, here.... it IS the highest—or supreme—law of the land.
I understand that many, like the vast majority would think and say that, but I wouldn't and neither should John nor any Christian. There is no higher law than God's law, there is no context in which God's law would be set lower than man's law...ever. He appeals to the general, maybe just generally conservative pluralistic American.
This isn't so much about Left or Right, as it is about tyranny, regardless of the clothes it wears.
Exactly. I think people put way too much emphasis on what side of the aisle a person is and not enough on how they are profiting off of being in office.
Read up on the Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson presidencies, and then come back and tell us if you still think you're suffering under a "tyranny" now.
Did we pass the tranny test? Oh wait... :help:
Adrenaline_6
04-01-21, 09:29
Read up on the Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson presidencies, and then come back and tell us if you still think you're suffering under a "tyranny" now.
Are you actually trying to compare states of tyranny to justify the current state of tyranny?
Honestly, under Bush 43, with a Republican majority in the house and senate, the SCOTUS ruled that eminent domain can be applied for PRIVATE USE if it can be demonstrated that there is potential positive outcomes for the public at large.
The case was state of Florida engaging in land grabs of coastal private property so that they could develop hotels and casinos. At the time it was the most BLATANT violation of the Constitution despite specific wording to the contrary.
Nobody came out guns blazing. No justices were tarred, feathered and sent on there way. In fact most people didn't know it even happened and those who did mostly didn't understand the big deal or why it was even important.
Ruling like that get us rulings like this with the same dependable complacency. And of course by then it's kinda too late.
Now every once in awhile they overstep and have to walk things back a little. Sadly it's usually absurd stuff like arm braces.
Hadn't heard of Florida doing it, just New London, CT doing it for Pfizer. No benefit came about, still a vacant lot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Clearly voting en masse is completely ineffective now. What do we do?
I'm not sure anyone has a perfect answer to that question, but the first step almost certainly should be getting our s**t in order and getting organized on multiple levels. Starting with those like minded individuals closest to you, and branching outward. No one here, even the baddest among us, is going to make any kind of measurable difference alone. We need numbers, we need organization. Before that can happen though, we really need to define what "we" is.
Also, as much as it's hard to admit, guns are a whole lot less effective in the war we find ourselves in now. Maybe that all plays a part later. Who knows? Right now though, we're in the middle of an information war and we're loosing badly. I'm not convinced it isn't already too late on that front.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
WillieThom
04-01-21, 23:39
I understand that many, like the vast majority would think and say that, but I wouldn't and neither should John nor any Christian. There is no higher law than God's law, there is no context in which God's law would be set lower than man's law...ever. He appeals to the general, maybe just generally conservative pluralistic American.
That’s really neat.
WillieThom
04-01-21, 23:39
I understand that many, like the vast majority would think and say that, but I wouldn't and neither should John nor any Christian. There is no higher law than God's law, there is no context in which God's law would be set lower than man's law...ever. He appeals to the general, maybe just generally conservative pluralistic American.
.....
That’s really neat.
"Neat"? I'm overwhelm, hold on while I catch my breath.
John's a nice guy, but like so many American Christians, seems to have forgotten doctrinal history before American came into existence.
WillieThom
04-02-21, 00:56
It was a dismissal. No need to keep on.
It was a dismissal. No need to keep on.
Yeah, Willie I got that. Right back at ya Mr. Law of the Land.
Honestly, under Bush 43, with a Republican majority in the house and senate, the SCOTUS ruled that eminent domain can be applied for PRIVATE USE if it can be demonstrated that there is potential positive outcomes for the public at large.
The case was state of Florida engaging in land grabs of coastal private property so that they could develop hotels and casinos. At the time it was the most BLATANT violation of the Constitution despite specific wording to the contrary.
Nobody came out guns blazing. No justices were tarred, feathered and sent on there way. In fact most people didn't know it even happened and those who did mostly didn't understand the big deal or why it was even important.
Ruling like that get us rulings like this with the same dependable complacency. And of course by then it's kinda too late.
Now every once in awhile they overstep and have to walk things back a little. Sadly it's usually absurd stuff like arm braces.
Exactly my broader point.
Or, current day, the fact that the state regulators where never met with angry gangs of shopkeepers ready to toss them out any time they showed up to cite/fine a business for some arbitrary Covid mandate.
I see and wholeheartedly agree with every point in your entire post. The quote from your second post is truly haunting and deadly accurate.
So why aren't YOU dead or in prison for trying to fight it? We all see it. We all know exactly what it is and exactly how they are doing it. What will it take to get YOU out of your house and into the streets to stop it?
Ah yes... the penultimate "well what are you doing then?" argument rears its head yet again...
Well... back at ya.
Essentially that argument insinuates the speaker has a better plan, or is already doing something more effective. Share with the class then.
But I'll answer the question anyway:
Because I'm not an idiot, and right now the best thing, given current enemy actions, is to do nothing (except the oft repeated organize/buy/plan).
"Never interrupt the enemy when they are in the middle of making a mistake". Remember the 'CHAZ'?
Rogue556 made some good points as well, although I suspect any serious organization will be a very late-game thing (if ever); you'll always be the bad guy, even to your erstwhile allies. IT will be up to everyone as an individual to decide what level of response they are going to take, for their own reasons. No, it likely won't accomplish anything measurable right then and there, but neither will doing nothing. Like I said in the other thread, I think the reason why this is all such a meme-driven thing is most people have grasped good and well there is no greater cause to support, just what the individual is willing to put up with and for how long.
"The Streets"/mass action are for people with a movement and some level of public opinion behind them, and we have neither.
We can point to episodes of government abuse going unchecked, like Steyr's example, or the Branch Davidians, but not much talk about Cliven Bundy. I don't even know how all that ended up. I just know that the feds, at least at one point, backed off. Then we see what Timothy McVeigh decided to do about it all....
Which "Bundy Event"? The famous "bridge standoff" thing over the Fed/BLM actions ended with a net win, the Malheur thing... kind of a shitshow all around, feds/popo shot one guy (Lavoy), sort of a net draw. As far as the Bundy's as a whole, IIRC there is still some stuff going on with them, that I've not kept up with.
Mcveigh was a dipshit and probably a patsy. I don't count that event as anyone 'deciding to do something'. "Killdozer" would be a more apt example.
"Neat"? I'm overwhelm, hold on while I catch my breath.
John's a nice guy, but like so many American Christians, seems to have forgotten doctrinal history before American came into existence.
Seems you are looking for a theocracy. Otherwise if simply being "religious" trumps "mans law" than what protects us from sharia becoming the law of the land simply because enough muslims decide allahs law supersedes everything else.
Sadly for you I don't think a christian theocracy currently exists anywhere in the world and when we did have one it didn't go very well and I hope that isn't your vision for a perfect world of gods law. You can sort of do the judeo part of judeo christian in Israel, but I think you'd be disappointed. Maybe if you and enough fundamentalists could get together you could go all ZION or would it be Xtian on some vulnerable piece of middle eastern real estate and raise the Jesus flag.
I'd personally recommend Cyprus. Kick out the Turks and you would be good to go, the Greeks should be heavily Greek Orthodox so no real conflict there.
daddyusmaximus
04-02-21, 08:03
Well the first legit argument I have is the video is still up, the presenter hasn't been arrested and sent to reeducation camp and all of those things. But that doesn't mean everything is just fine either.
True, but the comeback for that is in keeping with his warning... He hasn't been arrested, and sent to a reeducation camp... SO FAR.
The point he's trying to make, and that I, (probably you) and so many others agree with, is that this is the goal they are working towards.
I'm positive they look forward to the day when they can just disappear people who become a thorn in their side.
I personally think that the only thing stopping them from doing such at this very moment is that they feel they haven't quite demonized us enough so that they feel they would have sufficient support for such actions were images of them leak out to the public.
Seems you are looking for a theocracy.
...
... the Greeks should be heavily Greek Orthodox so no real conflict there.
He has been very clear about that being his preference.
Nope, his group is a schism of a schism, and the Orthodox would not get along.
Tyranny isn’t the problem.
It’s a total change of society.
Remember, AT THE TIME everybody was gleefully kissing Lenin and Hitler’s asses when only a very few people were saying “Hey wait I don’t know about this”. They got the 1917 and 1929 equivalent of “Okay Boomer”.
I mean, you’re all looking for the head. There is no head. Look at the society. You’re all already on the outskirts as is.
It takes people to give a tyrant his power. A lot of people. A lot of corporatism. A lot of minarchy.
Mr. Lovell is looking for the guy in the Van Dyke or the Uniform. I’m looking at what the neighborhood is listening to and advocating.
The music, the art, what passes for scholastic merit.
Ever read the original book I Am Legend?
I wish I never read it so I could read it blind again for the first time. It was deliciously subversive social satire. It was Dawn of the Dead 78 before Dawn of the Dead.
The ending is where you all are. To the current society, you aren’t heroes. You’re all crazy white guys with guns pushing dead religions or non-feasible social order.
"Neat"? I'm overwhelm, hold on while I catch my breath.
John's a nice guy, but like so many American Christians, seems to have forgotten doctrinal history before American came into existence.
I would put money on, if you were to sit down with John and discuss this topic, you and he (and I) would agree on 99% of what you believe.
Although I’m not sure even that is good enough for you. You seem to like throwing the baby out with the bath water so....
Adrenaline_6
04-02-21, 09:25
Tyranny isn’t the problem.
It’s a total change of society.
Remember, AT THE TIME everybody was gleefully kissing Lenin and Hitler’s asses when only a very few people were saying “Hey wait I don’t know about this”. They got the 1917 and 1929 equivalent of “Okay Boomer”.
I mean, you’re all looking for the head. There is no head. Look at the society. You’re all already on the outskirts as is.
It takes people to give a tyrant his power. A lot of people. A lot of corporatism. A lot of minarchy.
Mr. Lovell is looking for the guy in the Van Dyke or the Uniform. I’m looking at what the neighborhood is listening to and advocating.
The music, the art, what passes for scholastic merit.
Ever read the original book I Am Legend?
I wish I never read it so I could read it blind again for the first time. It was deliciously subversive social satire. It was Dawn of the Dead 78 before Dawn of the Dead.
The ending is where you all are. To the current society, you aren’t heroes. You’re all crazy white guys with guns pushing dead religions or non-feasible social order.
Agreed. Everyone cares too much about "looking like the bad guy". That's why nothing really gets done on "our" side except for posturing and drawing a so called line in the sand, then redrawing a line a little farther back from the real one every time it moves.
"We" all forget that ultimately the winners determines how the winners look like, no matter how they really look or what they did. The left knows this and carries out there "operations" with that mind set. We know they are fascists, the ones in charge know they are fascists...they just don't care, because in the end, if they win, they are not.
I am not sure if and when "our" side will play by the same rules and mindset, but if we don't, we will be the losers. Like it or not.
I would put money on, if you were to sit down with John and discuss this topic, you and he (and I) would agree on 99% of what you believe.
Although I’m not sure even that is good enough for you. You seem to like throwing the baby out with the bath water so....
Maybe, because of our fallenness there will always be disagreement on something, hopefully minor. It's the big doctrines that we need to agree on, but generally whatever form of Christianity we gravitate to because of our doctrinal beliefs, that is going to determine whether we could have an on going communion. From my point of view the fatal flaws and anti-Christian principles in the Constitution are such that I could never willing submit to it. I doubt that you or John would agree, that's a big big disagreement that can't be bridged. It doesn't mean that I think that others that disagree with me on this or other issues are not Christians.
Seems you are looking for a theocracy. Otherwise if simply being "religious" trumps "mans law" than what protects us from sharia becoming the law of the land simply because enough muslims decide allahs law supersedes everything else.
Sadly for you I don't think a christian theocracy currently exists anywhere in the world and when we did have one it didn't go very well and I hope that isn't your vision for a perfect world of gods law. You can sort of do the judeo part of judeo christian in Israel, but I think you'd be disappointed. Maybe if you and enough fundamentalists could get together you could go all ZION or would it be Xtian on some vulnerable piece of middle eastern real estate and raise the Jesus flag.
I'd personally recommend Cyprus. Kick out the Turks and you would be good to go, the Greeks should be heavily Greek Orthodox so no real conflict there.
We would call it historic theonomy. Think of ancient Israel in the days of David. There was one religion authorized, the people understood that and practiced it. It was overseen by the faithful priests. You couldn't open a Baal temple down the street from God's temple. David was the king, he was the magistrate. He didn't perform the religious services at the temple and priests didn't legislate. But they did work together for the good of the kingdom and the people. They were separate in their duties, but not in some absolute way. Theocracy is different in that the men in charge of the religion are also in charge of the gov't, there is no separation at all. Law is always based on someone's idea of right and wrong. European and then U.S. law was based on a developing understanding of biblical moral law at one time, although there was much intermingling of the mere opinions of men. The divine right of kings being one of those mere opinions of men that violated divine law and had to be reformed. You may think that Biblical law is somehow equivalent to Sharia, but I don't. The U.S. is essentially a religiously pluralistic state, recognizing many religions as somehow valid. It also functions in a more, more atheistic way. The Democrats are functioning as atheists, even though they give lip service to "God". Joes a good Catholic all the while he does everything he can to further abortion. This country is fragmenting more and more because there is no more shared values amongst it's people. In religion, in what gov't should and shouldn't do, in the concept of rights, and economics. More and more we believe completely different things. Maybe it's pluralism that doesn't work very well. Historic theonomy has existed in the past and I believe someday it will exist in the vast majority of the world. If everyone believed and lived by the 10 commandments, would things be better or worst. Any Christian would know the answer.
He has been very clear about that being his preference.
Nope, his group is a schism of a schism, and the Orthodox would not get along.
Actually historic theonomy was instituted in the days of King David by God himself. It was also a developing religion/political system that was taken very seriously in Europe during the protestant reformation. They believed in the absolute validity of divine moral law and how it should shape politics. At one time England, Ireland, and Scotland held to the same terms of communion and view of the gov't that I hold to now. Although they held to monarchial form of gov't, I don't. Monarchy isn't absolutely necessary biblically. Who really are the schismatics? Since there is an almost complete rejection of biblical law in the world today and even in this country...how's that working out for all of us? Since we like to talk about the 2nd amendment here, where did that right come from? Atheists? Roman pagans? Mohamed? That's right, it came from the bible.
Since we like to talk about the 2nd amendment here, where did that right come from? Atheists? Roman pagans? Mohamed? That's right, it came from the bible.
Nope
I love you, man, and Iron is probably right we agree on say, maybe 90% of stuff and definitely the core. But c’mon now. I can build out a case for a natural right to self-defense, but we all know that isn’t what the Second Amendment is about, and we also know it isn’t in the Good Book.
Nope
I love you, man, and Iron is probably right we agree on say, maybe 90% of stuff and definitely the core. But c’mon now. I can build out a case for a natural right to self-defense, but we all know that isn’t what the Second Amendment is about, and we also know it isn’t in the Good Book.
The concept of self defense is most assuredly set down in the commandments God at least by Moses. I would argue that it most likely goes all the way back to Noah, possibly even to Cain and Able. I'm not arguing the idea of militias go back to Noah. But the ancient Israelite did have that concept in the days of Moses. Moses could call up quite a few of the faithful men to deal with the idolatrous Hebrews that got out of hand. I will say that the concepts were not as clear and spelled out in detail in ancient time, but the kernel of the idea was present.
As for natural rights arguement, I would say that it fails, as with all man made philosophy, because it isn't rooted in anything transcendent or objective. It collapses in human subjective thinking.....its a wax nose that can be formed into whatever the molder wants.
I'm glad we could agree on most things.
We would call it historic theonomy. Think of ancient Israel in the days of David. There was one religion authorized, the people understood that and practiced it. It was overseen by the faithful priests. You couldn't open a Baal temple down the street from God's temple. David was the king, he was the magistrate. He didn't perform the religious services at the temple and priests didn't legislate. But they did work together for the good of the kingdom and the people. They were separate in their duties, but not in some absolute way. Theocracy is different in that the men in charge of the religion are also in charge of the gov't, there is no separation at all. Law is always based on someone's idea of right and wrong. European and then U.S. law was based on a developing understanding of biblical moral law at one time, although there was much intermingling of the mere opinions of men. The divine right of kings being one of those mere opinions of men that violated divine law and had to be reformed. You may think that Biblical law is somehow equivalent to Sharia, but I don't. The U.S. is essentially a religiously pluralistic state, recognizing many religions as somehow valid. It also functions in a more, more atheistic way. The Democrats are functioning as atheists, even though they give lip service to "God". Joes a good Catholic all the while he does everything he can to further abortion. This country is fragmenting more and more because there is no more shared values amongst it's people. In religion, in what gov't should and shouldn't do, in the concept of rights, and economics. More and more we believe completely different things. Maybe it's pluralism that doesn't work very well. Historic theonomy has existed in the past and I believe someday it will exist in the vast majority of the world. If everyone believed and lived by the 10 commandments, would things be better or worst. Any Christian would know the answer.
So there's a problem right there.
If your mother in Nancy Pelosi, are you still required to honor her? What if your father was a serial killer?
Then there is the whole sabbath thing, jews saturday and christians sunday...who is actual correct and which entire group is hell bound for violating the sabbath every single week?
Also you seem to be wanting to declare a state religion, how do you reconcile that with the first amendment? If I'm a Nestorian which predate Protestantism and Church of England and thus predate all KJV bibles by more than a millennium does that mean you have to observe Nestorism or do we all default to Greek Orthodox?
So there's a problem right there.
If your mother in Nancy Pelosi, are you still required to honor her? What if your father was a serial killer?
Then there is the whole sabbath thing, jews saturday and christians sunday...who is actual correct and which entire group is hell bound for violating the sabbath every single week?
Also you seem to be wanting to declare a state religion, how do you reconcile that with the first amendment? If I'm a Nestorian which predate Protestantism and Church of England and thus predate all KJV bibles by more than a millennium does that mean you have to observe Nestorism or do we all default to Greek Orthodox?
Think of Honoring your parents that are horrible people in the same light as to love your enemy. Loving someone is more of an action than a feeling. If I'm to honor even my serial killer father, I must remember that God used even this evil person to bring me into existence. Fatherhood even in very flawed men is still an intrinsically good thing. I must see that good thing even in the horrible father. I must treat that father, though an enemy, with due respect as an image bearer of God, I must apply all the other commandments to him as well. Applying the commandments doesn't mean we overlook or not tell the truth about his horrible sin of murder.
Most Christians today reject keeping any kind of "Christian sabbath". I do try to keep it because it is continuing moral law just like the other 9 commandments, being instituted at creation. A rest from this world is helpful to me, but I must admit that I have much to learn in keeping it. I lack a certain consistency, I will not buy or sell on the day, I will not recreate, but my mind drifts to worldly things. which in and of themselves are not necessarily sinful on the other six days, but do draw me away from Christ. I believe that God has the prerogative to change the day from Saturday to Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Christ. I believe He did. As for the Jews that still maintain their religion, I would say that their unbelief concerning Christ is much more of a sin than their rejecting the Christian sabbath. You are essentially rejecting Him who is greater than the sabbath. They are as responsible to God to believe as I am. Does that mean hell for them? All sin is worthy of death. Protests to the RCC were going on long before Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. The fight to reform the church according to Christ's and the Apostles teachings is a never ending battle. The church and false converts were even resisting the Apostles while they were still alive. There was periods of reformation and apostasy in the OT and in the present time. I believe what happen in England, Ireland and Scotland in the 16th and 17th centuries was a faithful reformation and mighty moving of God. My church prays for that kind of reformation to happen in the whole world, which we believe God has promised. To throw up one's hands and give up saying it's hopeless to know the truth because of all the schism is ultimately just a rejection of God and His scriptures, it's to continue in unbelief.
It is true, I'm an establishmentarian. The truly righteous ruler must be helped by a united Christian church. The faithful minister of the gospel can help the magistrate to understand the will of God from His scriptures for the good of the nation and it's people. Magistrates are not helped by endless schisms and listening to the supposed wisdom of heathen religions any more than righteous king Josiah was helped to rule by listening to the priests of Baal in the OT. The magistrate is not exempt from obeying Christ. As I have said before, He's not referred to as the King of kings, and the Lord of lords for nothing. Magistrates must publicly recognize and own Christ and that spiritual institution He has created, the church. See Psalm 2. The righteous kings of ancient Israel always publicly recognized the true religion and it's institutions, and was a member therein. We are told that they were an example to us.
I didn't answer your specific question about Nestorianism. Simply put there were many views in the early church swirling about concerning the nature of the relationship between the divine and human nature of Christ. The early church had to iron out the true doctrine and reject the false one. This history of doctrinal hashing out can be difficult to take on, and I'm no expert. But I do believe the men of that time in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon came to the correct view and it has survived in the west to this day. Are they infallible? No, no council is. Do I believe they are correct, yes. I'm held responsible for what I believe, I'm basically betting my life on it.
Think of Honoring your parents that are horrible people in the same light as to love your enemy.
Pass. This is why I'm not a christian. I have no interest in loving evil, vile, reprehensible people. You forgive if you wish, I never will. To me forgiving evil is evil. I'm more of a karma person.
Couldn't be christian if I tried, mostly because of this mindset. I understand people make mistakes, and if they are good people they fix it best they can. But I also understand there are very, very bad people...the kind of people who can engage in vivisection on an innocent child. That person will never find forgiveness in me and if I'm a very good person and presented with the opportunity I will check them off the planet.
I believe never harm the innocent, never overlook the guilty. I believe most actions require acceptance or retaliation. I don't believe we are born flawed and I don't believe in evil forces that compel us to do bad things, I think some people are quite capable of inhumanity all by themselves. That is my religion, although it's not really spiritual.
But here is the real fatal flaw in your idea. Assume for a moment we practiced universal christianity. I don't believe in the supernatural so even if I abided by the 10 commandments and went to church everyday...according to your beliefs I'd still be lost and unsavable because I honestly don't believe in any deity or demons or supernatural whatever at all. And if jawheh is truly omnipotent my devotion won't trick him. I will be damned because I never received the minimal critical evidence I'd require to accept belief in judeo christianity. And honestly, that's a pretty shitty deal and I would present as evidence that not everyone is trying to be saved by anyone.
Tyranny isn’t the problem.
It’s a total change of society.
Remember, AT THE TIME everybody was gleefully kissing Lenin and Hitler’s asses when only a very few people were saying “Hey wait I don’t know about this”. They got the 1917 and 1929 equivalent of “Okay Boomer”.
I mean, you’re all looking for the head. There is no head. Look at the society. You’re all already on the outskirts as is.
It takes people to give a tyrant his power. A lot of people. A lot of corporatism. A lot of minarchy.
Mr. Lovell is looking for the guy in the Van Dyke or the Uniform. I’m looking at what the neighborhood is listening to and advocating.
The music, the art, what passes for scholastic merit.
Ever read the original book I Am Legend?
I wish I never read it so I could read it blind again for the first time. It was deliciously subversive social satire. It was Dawn of the Dead 78 before Dawn of the Dead.
The ending is where you all are. To the current society, you aren’t heroes. You’re all crazy white guys with guns pushing dead religions or non-feasible social order.This is true. The only way to save this country is to shift the culture back. Unfortunately we no longer have a voice. The Marxist own the media. It's hard to get a young man's attention when some whore is twerking in has face singing about her wap.
A war won't necessarily fix a culture issue either, just look at the middle east. Eventually western culture will rise again, but probably not until after people get fed up with living under a boot. China will probably get there before we do as their people have been under it for longer (although they seem more accepting of it).
Soli Deo Gloria
This is why we can never have anything.
Let’s say the culture war shifted. Everybody got their freedom, dignity, and responsibility back.
We’d piss it away again squabbling about which religious practices to get fanatical about.
If you were that religious then you really wouldn’t want a gun.
Pass. This is why I'm not a christian. I have no interest in loving evil, vile, reprehensible people. You forgive if you wish, I never will. To me forgiving evil is evil. I'm more of a karma person.
Couldn't be christian if I tried, mostly because of this mindset. I understand people make mistakes, and if they are good people they fix it best they can. But I also understand there are very, very bad people...the kind of people who can engage in vivisection on an innocent child. That person will never find forgiveness in me and if I'm a very good person and presented with the opportunity I will check them off the planet.
I believe never harm the innocent, never overlook the guilty. I believe most actions require acceptance or retaliation. I don't believe we are born flawed and I don't believe in evil forces that compel us to do bad things, I think some people are quite capable of inhumanity all by themselves. That is my religion, although it's not really spiritual.
But here is the real fatal flaw in your idea. Assume for a moment we practiced universal christianity. I don't believe in the supernatural so even if I abided by the 10 commandments and went to church everyday...according to your beliefs I'd still be lost and unsavable because I honestly don't believe in any deity or demons or supernatural whatever at all. And if jawheh is truly omnipotent my devotion won't trick him. I will be damned because I never received the minimal critical evidence I'd require to accept belief in judeo christianity. And honestly, that's a pretty shitty deal and I would present as evidence that not everyone is trying to be saved by anyone.
And so you shall not.
I see the routine now. I write something generally biblical, you then ask some questions about what would Tom do, I then try to answer you the best I am able, you then come back with I don't believe anything you or the bible says about much of anything. Why don't we just shorten this whole routine of yours by cutting the whole middle out. I say something generally biblical, you just reject everything out of hand, and then I say OK. Saves me writing.
This is why we can never have anything.
Let’s say the culture war shifted. Everybody got their freedom, dignity, and responsibility back.
We’d piss it away again squabbling about which religious practices to get fanatical about.
If you were that religious then you really wouldn’t want a gun.
Yeah, you have to watch out for that Jesus guy. He and His followers are always causing problems, with His teachings and all.
Poor John, he seems to have succumbed to the idea that his enemy's enemy is his friend. They're not. I've seen that on this forum. The day that Christians wake up to the fact that they have hitched their wagon to people who say they are their friends, understand they have been used by politicians from both sides and especially reject unfaithful ministers and wolves in the pulpit, maybe then there will be a true unity in the church, then a 3rd reformation. Then maybe God will bring a good change.
And so you shall not.
I see the routine now. I write something generally biblical, you then ask some questions about what would Tom do, I then try to answer you the best I am able, you then come back with I don't believe anything you or the bible says about much of anything. Why don't we just shorten this whole routine of yours by cutting the whole middle out. I say something generally biblical, you just reject everything out of hand, and then I say OK. Saves me writing.
Well because it's not a routine.
You said something, I replied. You clarified, I clarified in response.
But the entire time I've just been supporting my initial view and pointing out why the 10 commandments as law of the land aren't gonna save us as a society or even save our souls or at least mine and that is assuming souls in the judeo christian sense actually exist.
I also thought we were exchanging ideas, I did try and be polite in the expressing of my views. As for saving us time, I could easily put that ball in your court and say "don't say anything biblical if you don't want it challenged" but that wouldn't be polite and it would be me presuming that my view is somehow more valid than yours.
So equal time and all that.
Few other things.
First you are a fundamentalist in CA, I would think you would be very accustomed to people who question or completely reject your beliefs.
Second, and more importantly, why does it concern you what I believe? I always considered religion a very personal thing. I don't care what anyone else believes, why does my non acceptance of your beliefs bother you at all? I simply wouldn't want to participate in your quasi theocracy any more than I'd want to live under sharia law, but you are still free to believe as you wish unimpeded by my beliefs.
Third, if you felt somehow set up or whatever. That isn't me. We are on the internet discussing guns and religion. I thought we were just talking. I'm not the guy who does clever slights or whatever, if I'm being unfriendly with somebody...it will be very, very obvious. I'm not that subtle.
I am somewhat offended to have my entire belief system dismissed as a "routine", but not enough that it actually bothers me.
Quit bothering. I’ve long come to the conclusion that Tombo not only doesn’t really believe in all the religious stuff but that he uses it for cheap heat.
Instead of being like a rational adult and saying “Hey. Well whatever works for you” he has to go on some longwinded spiel and then get “offended” because someone else has either a different belief or no religious belief.
It’s very dangerous and unethical what he does because most ardent atheists were victims of spiritual abuse and basically said “Aw who F’ing needs it?” and then there are just the basically irreligious who simply never had exposure and don’t want it.
He will beat you over the head with a religious text that is a mishmash of Assyrian fable, Jewish myth, a record of a religious upstart and the religious infighting that continued alongside contradictory Zionic code, brutal sentences usually ending in death, and if you tell him Jesus (wasn’t even His real name. It was Immanuel. Jesus is a Shoah name. And basically means “Blank”) was actually Black. He will shit a brick trying to beat you over the head that Jesus had fair, delicate Caucasian features as opposed to the short, hooknosed, oily skinned, curly haired brown person that He actually was.
So don’t even punch that tar baby. I like to keep my church and state totally separate.
Like the Founders intended.
Steyr, maybe I’m butting in here a bit, but it’s worth a comment.
I do not naturally love my enemies. Beyond “my enemies,” I also do not naturally love those who do evil.
It is possible and realistic to genuinely care about an individual that does not deserve it and whom you may be “flipping the off switch” on in the name moment. Here’s what I mean: If someone does something terrible and illegal to a member of my family, I can forgive that person. But I can also join the posse/testify against that person despite knowing his head will end up on a spike/hanged/lethal injection.
Justice and love are not mutually exclusive things. Justice is impersonal; love is personal.
Again, do I now or would I in the above example naturally love? No. It isn’t natural. It is a conscious submission to how I am told I must think and act, and the founder of my faith set the example himself. Beyond the conscious submission, I would suggest it takes a supernatural push from within, but that’s maybe a little beyond the main point.
I haven’t watched John’s video. However, to Firefly’s point about being “religious” as antithetical to owning a gun... Nah. Swords were more the things back in the day, and they were “explicitly approved.”
Would I allow myself to be murdered for my faith without fighting back? Maybe. But I don’t see that happening here for the next couple decades. Would I allow a mugger to take my wallet? Yeah. It’s just money or an ID. Would I let someone steal my kid off the playground or wander into my daughter’s bedroom in the middle of the night? Ah, no. Not going to be a good day for him. If that situation ever arose, I would have to separate hate and love both from a separate command to care for our families. To go a step further, I see no issue (and actually see example) of taking up arms for nation and principles, but if I ever did, I should be looking for opportunities to end that strife as soon as feasible.
A bit rambling, but my point is that your position is most natural, and Christianity acknowledges the illogical nature of our commanded approach. But I think it has brought peace to a lot of hearts/minds which in turn have changed the world for the better.
Evangelistic hook on the eve of Easter: God loves you, despite your (with the whole world) rejection of him and your demand that he conform to your evidentiary requirements. He came to earth specifically to demonstrate that love on a corporate and personal level. His requirement is faith in his death and resurrection, but it isn’t even blind faith. Honestly, I don’t even see the Bible saying we have to like his approach...but we do have to believe it. So there you go. I don’t think logic is what wins most people over to Christ, but Mere Christianity is a classic, and Cold Case Christianity was decent as I recall.
You, too, Firefly. This was never a white man’s religion, though it dominated the culture at the time the expansion into the new world occurred.
Edit to correct spelling...and to “lol” that Firefly commented while I was thumbing that out.
Quit bothering. I’ve long come to the conclusion that Tombo not only doesn’t really believe in all the religious stuff but that he uses it for cheap heat.
Instead of being like a rational adult and saying “Hey. Well whatever works for you” he has to go on some longwinded spiel and then get “offended” because someone else has either a different belief or no religious belief.
It’s very dangerous and unethical what he does because most ardent atheists were victims of spiritual abuse and basically said “Aw who F’ing needs it?” and then there are just the basically irreligious who simply never had exposure and don’t want it.
He will beat you over the head with a religious text that is a mishmash of Assyrian fable, Jewish myth, a record of a religious upstart and the religious infighting that continued alongside contradictory Zionic code, brutal sentences usually ending in death, and if you tell him Jesus (wasn’t even His real name. It was Immanuel. Jesus is a Shoah name. And basically means “Blank”) was actually Black. He will shit a brick trying to beat you over the head that Jesus had fair, delicate Caucasian features as opposed to the short, hooknosed, oily skinned, curly haired brown person that He actually was.
So don’t even punch that tar baby. I like to keep my church and state totally separate.
Like the Founders intended.
I don't really like to use words like this, but this is some the most self-righteous clap trap bullshit I think I've ever heard about me personally. But then again it's Firefly, king of the bullshit.
Steyr, maybe I’m butting in here a bit, but it’s worth a comment.
I do not naturally love my enemies. Beyond “my enemies,” I also do not naturally love those who do evil.
It is possible and realistic to genuinely care about an individual that does not deserve it and whom you may be “flipping the off switch” on in the name moment. Here’s what I mean: If someone does something terrible and illegal to a member of my family, I can forgive that person. But I can also join the posse/testify against that person despite knowing his head will end up on a spike/hanged/lethal injection.
Justice and love are not mutually exclusive things. Justice is impersonal; love is personal.
Again, do I now or would I in the above example naturally love? No. It isn’t natural. It is a conscious submission to how I am told I must think and act, and the founder of my faith set the example himself. Beyond the conscious submission, I would suggest it takes a supernatural push from within, but that’s maybe a little beyond the main point.
I haven’t watched John’s video. However, to Firefly’s point about being “religious” as antithetical to owning a gun... Nah. Swords were more the things back in the day, and they were “explicitly approved.”
Would I allow myself to be murdered for my faith without fighting back? Maybe. But I don’t see that happening here for the next couple decades. Would I allow a mugger to take my wallet? Yeah. It’s just money or an ID. Would I let someone steal my kid off the playground or wander into my daughter’s bedroom in the middle of the night? Ah, no. Not going to be a good day for him. If that situation ever arose, I would have to separate hate and love both from a separate command to care for our families. To go a step further, I see no issue (and actually see example) of taking up arms for nation and principles, but if I ever did, I should be looking for opportunities to end that strife as soon as feasible.
A bit rambling, but my point is that your position is most natural, and Christianity acknowledges the illogical nature of our commanded approach. But I think it has brought peace to a lot of hearts/minds which in turn have changed the world for the better.
Evangelistic hook on the eve of Easter: God loves you, despite your (with the whole world) rejection of him and your demand that he conform to your evidentiary requirements. He came to earth specifically to demonstrate that love on a corporate and personal level. His requirement is faith in his death and resurrection, but it isn’t even blind faith. Honestly, I don’t even see the Bible saying we have to like his approach...but we do have to believe it. So there you go. I don’t think logic is what wins most people over to Christ, but Mere Christianity is a classic, and Cold Case Christianity was decent as I recall.
You, too, Firefly. This was never a white man’s religion, though it dominated the culture at the time the expansion into the new world occurred.
Edit to correct spelling...and to “lol” that Firefly commented while I was thumbing that out.
I don’t know. Were my faith where I like it to be; I doubt that I would want to harm anyone. Even in the Garden, Jesus stayed their hands from violence and went willingly
I don't really like to use words like this, but this is some the most self-righteous clap trap bullshit I think I've ever heard about me personally. But then again it's Firefly, king of the bullshit.
Then FORGIVE ME if you are Christian enough.
I don’t know. Were my faith where I like it to be; I doubt that I would want to harm anyone. Even in the Garden, Jesus stayed their hands from violence and went willingly
Then FORGIVE ME if you are Christian enough.
I'm willing, but somehow bullshitter I don't think you really mean it, do ya bullshitter? It's a miracle I don't despise all cops after interacting with a waste like you.
I don't really like to use words like this, but this is some the most self-righteous clap trap bullshit I think I've ever heard about me personally. But then again it's Firefly, king of the bullshit.
I'm willing, but somehow bullshitter I don't think you really mean it, do ya bullshitter? It's a miracle I don't despise all cops after interacting a waste like you.
Jesus was flogged, stoned, crucified and skewered and loved and forgave those who did these things.
I’m just a mildly buzzed guy on the can a whole country away who called you on your discrepancies of personality and you all you can do is curse (which you don’t ’like to do’) and get mad. Whether I was sincere or not (and I am) it’s still your duty to love and forgive.
What about “Love they neighbor”? You yourself are declaring the Ten Commandments as the supreme law of the land but you are breaking one right now.
It’s okay, you know not what you do.
Yours in Christ
Jesus was flogged, stoned, crucified and skewered and loved and forgave those who did these things.
I’m just a mildly buzzed guy on the can a whole country away who called you on your discrepancies of personality and you all you can do is curse (which you don’t ’like to do’) and get mad. Whether I was sincere or not (and I am) it’s still your duty to love and forgive.
What about “Love they neighbor”? You yourself are declaring the Ten Commandments as the supreme law of the land but you are breaking one right now.
It’s okay, you know not what you do.
Yours in Christ
So now we know, you're drunk and decide to ream me a new one, swell. Just go sleep it off.
Steyr, maybe I’m butting in here a bit, but it’s worth a comment.
I do not naturally love my enemies. Beyond “my enemies,” I also do not naturally love those who do evil.
It is possible and realistic to genuinely care about an individual that does not deserve it and whom you may be “flipping the off switch” on in the name moment. Here’s what I mean: If someone does something terrible and illegal to a member of my family, I can forgive that person. But I can also join the posse/testify against that person despite knowing his head will end up on a spike/hanged/lethal injection.
Justice and love are not mutually exclusive things. Justice is impersonal; love is personal.
Again, do I now or would I in the above example naturally love? No. It isn’t natural. It is a conscious submission to how I am told I must think and act, and the founder of my faith set the example himself. Beyond the conscious submission, I would suggest it takes a supernatural push from within, but that’s maybe a little beyond the main point.
I haven’t watched John’s video. However, to Firefly’s point about being “religious” as antithetical to owning a gun... Nah. Swords were more the things back in the day, and they were “explicitly approved.”
Would I allow myself to be murdered for my faith without fighting back? Maybe. But I don’t see that happening here for the next couple decades. Would I allow a mugger to take my wallet? Yeah. It’s just money or an ID. Would I let someone steal my kid off the playground or wander into my daughter’s bedroom in the middle of the night? Ah, no. Not going to be a good day for him. If that situation ever arose, I would have to separate hate and love both from a separate command to care for our families. To go a step further, I see no issue (and actually see example) of taking up arms for nation and principles, but if I ever did, I should be looking for opportunities to end that strife as soon as feasible.
A bit rambling, but my point is that your position is most natural, and Christianity acknowledges the illogical nature of our commanded approach. But I think it has brought peace to a lot of hearts/minds which in turn have changed the world for the better.
Evangelistic hook on the eve of Easter: God loves you, despite your (with the whole world) rejection of him and your demand that he conform to your evidentiary requirements. He came to earth specifically to demonstrate that love on a corporate and personal level. His requirement is faith in his death and resurrection, but it isn’t even blind faith. Honestly, I don’t even see the Bible saying we have to like his approach...but we do have to believe it. So there you go. I don’t think logic is what wins most people over to Christ, but Mere Christianity is a classic, and Cold Case Christianity was decent as I recall.
You, too, Firefly. This was never a white man’s religion, though it dominated the culture at the time the expansion into the new world occurred.
Edit to correct spelling...and to “lol” that Firefly commented while I was thumbing that out.
First, thanks for taking the time.
But while you might be capable of forgiving a person who does something terrible to a loved one (paraphrasing), I can't. That is not me. Assuming it wasn't accidental, someone who deliberately hurts someone I love deserves everything coming to them.
The first part is I don't believe there is some ultimate cosmic justice or god figure that is going to correct the injustices of life. If I did believe that, I too could sit back and let things take their course, but I don't believe it exists.
There is a confucian idea that translates something along the lines of "No man should have to live under the same heaven with the man who murdered his father." So I'm more of a confucianist than a christian, in fact I'd be a terrible christian. Even philosophically I'd make a terrible christian, I don't subscribe to turn the other cheek and about the only thing I can align with is "do unto others" but I practice it for both good and bad. I try to be nice to nice people, I try to be terrible to terrible people. To the best of my ability I repay kindness with kindness and harm with harm.
Now I completely understand that from your perspective, you might not even be able to understand that thought process and real christians are better people than I will ever be. But I'm not trying to be the best person. I do understand why some might forgive, it's better than carrying the burden of hatred, but I relieve myself of that burden by different means.
Quit bothering. I’ve long come to the conclusion that Tombo not only doesn’t really believe in all the religious stuff but that he uses it for cheap heat.
So me and Tom are having a discussion. While I disagree with many of his views, I'm not emotionally invested enough in the subject to be upset by anything he says. He disagrees with me, it's not nearly as important as deciding what I might have for lunch tomorrow.
I disagree with him. Pretty sure it's not going to dramatically alter what he planned to do for easter.
I'm willing, but somehow bullshitter I don't think you really mean it, do ya bullshitter? It's a miracle I don't despise all cops after interacting with a waste like you.
So calling you out on this one, why would you ever judge all cops based on the actions of one? Should I judge all christians based upon how you sometimes conduct yourself on the internet?
Aren't you a pastor? Shouldn't you be above most of this petty disagreement? If a person like FF, who you don't even know in person and have never met, can cause you to potentially hate other people you never met then at risk of offending, doesn't that make you a rather poor christian?
You just having an off night?
vicious_cb
04-04-21, 02:38
So calling you out on this one, why would you ever judge all cops based on the actions of one? Should I judge all christians based upon how you sometimes conduct yourself on the internet?
Aren't you a pastor? Shouldn't you be above most of this petty disagreement? If a person like FF, who you don't even know in person and have never met, can cause you to potentially hate other people you never met then at risk of offending, doesn't that make you a rather poor christian?
You just having an off night?
Not just one, after seeing the many many instances of cops abusing peoples rights its safe for me to assume ALL COPS ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED unless I personally knew them.
If you have to ask yourself if we live under tyranny, first ask yourself who enforces that tyranny?
Andy Ngô
@MrAndyNgo
Breaking: #Antifa smash up a man’s truck at the Oregon state Capitol in Salem. He pulls out a gun and is arrested by responding police. #AntifaRiots
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1376313345423372288
Not just one, after seeing the many many instances of cops abusing peoples rights its safe for me to assume ALL COPS ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED unless I personally knew them.
If you have to ask yourself if we live under tyranny, first ask yourself who enforces that tyranny?
No. That’s not accurate. That’s just what is reported.
Statistically, you are still very much more likely to be murdered or assaulted by a black male between 17-21.
I feel like if I were part if some Tyrannical Death Squad keeping the Proletariat in line that life would be a lot easier and way less depressing.
No. It’s usually dealing with persons crimes and seeing otherwise decent people and their absolutely lowest point in life.
vicious_cb
04-04-21, 05:22
No. That’s not accurate. That’s just what is reported.
Statistically, you are still very much more likely to be murdered or assaulted by a black male between 17-21.
I feel like if I were part if some Tyrannical Death Squad keeping the Proletariat in line that life would be a lot easier and way less depressing.
No. It’s usually dealing with persons crimes and seeing otherwise decent people and their absolutely lowest point in life.
That is also true which is why I never relax...
To clarify what I mean when I say I have a healthy distrust of all cops that I dont personally know.
I do not trust to them:
to defend me or my property against being assaulted for example by likes of antifa
to uphold my rights to self defense if the previously mentioned happens
to uphold anything 2A related
When you see antifa cheer on the cops as they arrest a guy trying to defend himself in the video above. Or when they arrested that guy holding a shotgun in own house when a antifa mob surrounded his house. "Am I the bad guy?"
So me and Tom are having a discussion. While I disagree with many of his views, I'm not emotionally invested enough in the subject to be upset by anything he says. He disagrees with me, it's not nearly as important as deciding what I might have for lunch tomorrow.
I disagree with him. Pretty sure it's not going to dramatically alter what he planned to do for easter.
You prove my point, that this is a routine you go through. It doesn't even have the importance of a lunch choice. It's just a matter of "if it's something from the bible I must reject it". I essentially consider your supposed serious questions to be eristic, a ploy, nothing more. But BTAIM, It gives me opportunity speak about the scriptures.
So calling you out on this one, why would you ever judge all cops based on the actions of one? Should I judge all christians based upon how you sometimes conduct yourself on the internet?
Aren't you a pastor? Shouldn't you be above most of this petty disagreement? If a person like FF, who you don't even know in person and have never met, can cause you to potentially hate other people you never met then at risk of offending, doesn't that make you a rather poor christian?
You just having an off night?
So concerning Firefly's attack on me and the bible. In my response to him I, in my anger (which I'll deal with in a moment) I became a bit hyperbolic. I didn't say I actually despise all police or judge them all because of our interaction. I don't despise all cops. I don't despise even Firefly, though I believe he probably hates my guts and the things I say. I would never want to actually meet him while he has his badge and gun and he's working. He goes out of his way to go at me, so be it.
I am not a pastor, nor do I celebrate Easter. As for my anger toward him, yes it was wrong and I do apologized for it. I failed to distinguish his attack on me and his attack on God and His Scriptures. I should have turned the other cheek concerning his attack on me, and essentially ignored it. The real issue, the attack on God and His scripture, would be an occasion for genuine righteous anger, but I focused on myself instead. I exhibited fleshly anger the exact opposite of righteous anger. As for your question as to whether I'm a "poor Christian", do you know what the definition of a "poor Christian" is? What I am from my perspective is a Christian who reacted poorly in the face of a temptation.
kaiservontexas
04-06-21, 17:57
Weapons being something that establishes one as a freeman is a old pan-Germanic culture trait. The romans remarked on it. That is how old. Yay history, and being that this nation is one of several Germanic cultures. We innumerated such things into law.
Want another quick and dirty history lesson. Western separation of church in state is a Catholic Church issue pushed for due to the investiture crisis. Turns out the pope prefers choosing his bishops and cardinals and not the kings of various nations. This concept predates the so called enlightenment.
Divine right of kings is biblical. It is why the pope has to crown the sovereign to legitimize the new national warlord. Napoleon made light of it, but even he went through with it. If only Franco could of had that done. His dreams would have been realized. Franco always wanted to be the sovereign of Spain.
Our laws come from a variety of sources through time, and some of those are religious, some are just cultural hang ups, and others were due to the cost of doing business things that all economic activity generates.
Theocracy is not a free state, and I would resist the moral majority as much as any other group of freedom choking jerks. But I am a silly papist.
Oh fyi free will is very biblical and is part of what shaped our notion of folks having liberty, but then again our heathen Wotan and tor worshipping ancestors also had the thing; so, it is also another cultural hang up.
I will say many folks who are into liberty are into natural law. Natural law is simple, drink to much and nature punishes you with a hangover type example.
Lastly and quite frankly I do not care where my, and our, rights come from. Those rights are here, and I, elect, to personally keep those liberties.
You prove my point, that this is a routine you go through. It doesn't even have the importance of a lunch choice. It's just a matter of "if it's something from the bible I must reject it". I essentially consider your supposed serious questions to be eristic, a ploy, nothing more. But BTAIM, It gives me opportunity speak about the scriptures.
And you are wrong again. I think the constitution is very important, but when I have discussion on the internet it's not of the same importance.
But thanks for trying to play "gotcha" one more time. And now that you have let me know that you consider all my questions to be nothing more than ploys I will stop wasting any more time with you.
So concerning Firefly's attack on me and the bible. In my response to him I, in my anger (which I'll deal with in a moment) I became a bit hyperbolic. I didn't say I actually despise all police or judge them all because of our interaction. I don't despise all cops. I don't despise even Firefly, though I believe he probably hates my guts and the things I say. I would never want to actually meet him while he has his badge and gun and he's working. He goes out of his way to go at me, so be it.
I am not a pastor, nor do I celebrate Easter. As for my anger toward him, yes it was wrong and I do apologized for it. I failed to distinguish his attack on me and his attack on God and His Scriptures. I should have turned the other cheek concerning his attack on me, and essentially ignored it. The real issue, the attack on God and His scripture, would be an occasion for genuine righteous anger, but I focused on myself instead. I exhibited fleshly anger the exact opposite of righteous anger. As for your question as to whether I'm a "poor Christian", do you know what the definition of a "poor Christian" is? What I am from my perspective is a Christian who reacted poorly in the face of a temptation.
My mistake, I thought you were a pastor for some reason. But I was wrong about a lot of things concerning you.
And you are wrong again. I think the constitution is very important, but when I have discussion on the internet it's not of the same importance.
But thanks for trying to play "gotcha" one more time. And now that you have let me know that you consider all my questions to be nothing more than ploys I will stop wasting any more time with you.
We weren't discussing the constitution at the time. And there has never been one time, not one, where you agreed with me on anything concerning the scriptures. You always reject them on every subject. I can absolutely depend on that from you. Not once have you said....MMMMMM....let me think about that one. If it smells of bible, you'll disagree. I don't play gotcha, whatever you mean by that. I try to be honest and forthright. I was never operating under the delusion that I could debate someone into belief, but when someone 100% disagrees with you year after year after year and never really seems to consider the other position, well, that looks like debating for debating's sake...a ploy. I lived my life as an unbeliever for 34 years. Even in my early years of Christianity I was Mr. Constitution, so I've heard the arguments for a long time. I live by different principles now. I don't know what's going to happen to the U.S. in a year or decade or two, I'm not a prophet, but the country looks likes it failing and darkness is descending and the Constitution is and has been ignored by more and more people, maybe the problem isn't political, maybe it's something else.
Weapons being something that establishes one as a freeman is a old pan-Germanic culture trait. The romans remarked on it. That is how old. Yay history, and being that this nation is one of several Germanic cultures. We innumerated such things into law.
Want another quick and dirty history lesson. Western separation of church in state is a Catholic Church issue pushed for due to the investiture crisis. Turns out the pope prefers choosing his bishops and cardinals and not the kings of various nations. This concept predates the so called enlightenment.
Divine right of kings is biblical. It is why the pope has to crown the sovereign to legitimize the new national warlord. Napoleon made light of it, but even he went through with it. If only Franco could of had that done. His dreams would have been realized. Franco always wanted to be the sovereign of Spain.
Our laws come from a variety of sources through time, and some of those are religious, some are just cultural hang ups, and others were due to the cost of doing business things that all economic activity generates.
Theocracy is not a free state, and I would resist the moral majority as much as any other group of freedom choking jerks. But I am a silly papist.
Oh fyi free will is very biblical and is part of what shaped our notion of folks having liberty, but then again our heathen Wotan and tor worshipping ancestors also had the thing; so, it is also another cultural hang up.
I will say many folks who are into liberty are into natural law. Natural law is simple, drink to much and nature punishes you with a hangover type example.
Lastly and quite frankly I do not care where my, and our, rights come from. Those rights are here, and I, elect, to personally keep those liberties.
Faithful Presbyterians, the arch enemy of the Pope, would disagree with your assertion that "divine right" is biblical.
And since atheists/and really bad religionists are now in control at the national level and many states we'll have to see how your rights, from where ever, work out.
We weren't discussing the constitution at the time. And there has never been one time, not one, where you agreed with me on anything concerning the scriptures. You always reject them on every subject. I can absolutely depend on that from you. Not once have you said....MMMMMM....let me think about that one. If it smells of bible, you'll disagree. I don't play gotcha, whatever you mean by that. I try to be honest and forthright. I was never operating under the delusion that I could debate someone into belief, but when someone 100% disagrees with you year after year after year and never really seems to consider the other position, well, that looks like debating for debating's sake...a ploy. I lived my life as an unbeliever for 34 years. Even in my early years of Christianity I was Mr. Constitution, so I've heard the arguments for a long time. I live by different principles now. I don't know what's going to happen to the U.S. in a year or decade or two, I'm not a prophet, but the country looks likes it failing and darkness is descending and the Constitution is and has been ignored by more and more people, maybe the problem isn't political, maybe it's something else.
That is because, as you well know, I don't believe in the supernatural.
My point was, and one you evaded, is I can take a topic seriously but not get emotionally wrapped up in it when discussing it on the internet. Hence my obvious example of the Constitution.
In our previous discussions you would say things and I'd ask questions, which you would answer. But here is the thing, you sometimes have a childs mentality about these discussions. For example you point out that NOT ONCE have I agreed with you on scripture, which is obviously true. But to which I will counter that NOT ONCE have you agreed it's possible god doesn't exist and your entire belief system is nothing more than a fairy tale.
See how that works?
But here is the part you really missed, during the entire time I always tried to have a respectful discussion with you. Never did I say "nope, not possible...you are just crazy, stupid people", I have only simply explained why I don't hold those views.
But I guess disagreeing with you is just shtick, a tired comedy routine. So having been both misunderstood and insulted I will discontinue any discourse with you on any topic. Have fun with your hate filled world view and condemnation of well...most things. Hope that works out for you.
QUOTE=vicious_cb;2940689]Not just one, after seeing the many many instances of cops abusing peoples rights its safe for me to assume ALL COPS ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED unless I personally knew them.
If you have to ask yourself if we live under tyranny, first ask yourself who enforces that tyranny?[/QUOTE]
No. That’s not accurate. That’s just what is reported.
Statistically, you are still very much more likely to be murdered or assaulted by a black male between 17-21.
I feel like if I were part if some Tyrannical Death Squad keeping the Proletariat in line that life would be a lot easier and way less depressing.
No. It’s usually dealing with persons crimes and seeing otherwise decent people and their absolutely lowest point in life.
He didn't say anything about police being xx times more likely to commit a violent crime than black men.
There are numerous instances of police violating rights (and noted as such in court cases), the duds wear the same uniform as those not inclined to violate rights, and a citizen doesn't just get to break off contact when it starts becoming apparent they are dealing with a dud instead of a decent one.
Further, the decent rarely stop the bad in the act when observing rights being violated and the system is geared toward protecting the bad(which is also effectively punishing the good) with such things as "Brady Cops" who remain on after officially lying and applying qualified immunity to protect an officer on the civil side when an officer has violated rights under the claim the violation was committed in some trivially novel manner.
In the last year alone we have seen just as many instances of officers stepping up to violate rights as officers who have stood their ground and said screw that unconstitutional crap.
That is because, as you well know, I don't believe in the supernatural.
My point was, and one you evaded, is I can take a topic seriously but not get emotionally wrapped up in it when discussing it on the internet. Hence my obvious example of the Constitution.
In our previous discussions you would say things and I'd ask questions, which you would answer. But here is the thing, you sometimes have a childs mentality about these discussions. For example you point out that NOT ONCE have I agreed with you on scripture, which is obviously true. But to which I will counter that NOT ONCE have you agreed it's possible god doesn't exist and your entire belief system is nothing more than a fairy tale.
See how that works?
But here is the part you really missed, during the entire time I always tried to have a respectful discussion with you. Never did I say "nope, not possible...you are just crazy, stupid people", I have only simply explained why I don't hold those views.
But I guess disagreeing with you is just shtick, a tired comedy routine. So having been both misunderstood and insulted I will discontinue any discourse with you on any topic. Have fun with your hate filled world view and condemnation of well...most things. Hope that works out for you.
So if you don't believe in the supernatural and see zero evidence for it, are 100% biased against the scriptures and anything they teach, why do you persist in asking me questions? Whatever answer I give will automatically be rejected. Are you trying to see if I will fall on my face again with my hate filled worldview? Do you like to debate for debate's sake? This is now verging on sophistry. What is your motive for your questions? State it plainly. It sure doesn't sound like you're asking to get the deep questions of life answered from a hater like me. Your atheism, yes atheism, since you make zero room for the supernatural, shoot down all evidence of it 100% of the time, ends in the grave....pure 100% hopelessness. In 20, 30, 40 years whatever, maybe in the next hour, it's over for you, you're done, and I'm supposed to agree with you.? If that were the case for me, why not rob banks, and go out in a blaze of glory? It's all meaningless bs anyway. Why do anything supposedly good, nobodies going to care in 10 years if not sooner. At least with real agnostics they make room for the possibility for the supernatural, but not you, you flat don't believe it 100%. Why do you think I do this? Because I like to be disliked, I like the scorn heaped on me by guys like you and Firefly. I don't, it's painful. But Christians have a job to do, maybe small, maybe large, but it's to be obedient and warn people they are going over a cliff, and please turn around before it's too late. And some really dislike me doing here. I was going over that cliff 35 years ago and somebody cared enough about God's ways and cared enough about me to try and talk me out of my love for death. I don't hate you, and I've said as much, I want you to live. You see no evidence for the supernatural and I see it every time I look at the sky. It's true I disagree with your atheism 100%, why? Because it's irrational, and because it's hopeless, I understand, I was there one time, and I'm not going back. God offers life and you offer death, it's as simple as that.
Steyr is a well respected member & adds a lot of value to the site...when the topic of the vacs passport came up & needing it for travel / commerce, I knew he was going to mock my post while I was typing out Revelations. It just doesn't bother me as the Word says Christians will be mocked. It's clear how he feels & I don't think any less of him, nor does it deter me from posting what's in my heart.
Steyr is a well respected member & adds a lot of value to the site...when the topic of the vacs passport came up & needing it for travel / commerce, I knew he was going to mock my post while I was typing out Revelations. It just doesn't bother me as the Word says Christians will be mocked. It's clear how he feels & I don't think any less of him, nor does it deter me from posting what's in my heart.
I have respect toward him in that he bears the image of God. I don't respect his philosophy of life since it is a philosophy of anti-Christ and of death. What others think of him is their business. If the entire forum despised me, yet one Christian brother stood with me that would be enough. I do understand that I will be scorned and mocked, some of it is pretty vile and vicious, are you saying that you, when mocked, don't feel the sting? If not, you're a better man than me. Since you don't think of him any less, whatever that might mean, here's what God thinks of the unbeliever ever day.
Psalm 7:11-12 11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
12 If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready.
It's my hope that every unbeliever here is counted among God's elect.
Having seen it since being here I was simply expecting it, but doesn't mean I appreciate the petty jab...I know his dogma well as he's not shy about piping up. Brother, all I can offer from where I stand is that there will be no gaining of ground to salvation by debating on the net. He is simply going to be thinking of a retort while reading your post. You & I do the same if there is an effort or remark that would attempt to make one lose our faith. Best solution would be to pray for him & leave what is out of your control to God. I just get a sense you are letting this steal some of your joy & that shouldn't be happening.
<><
Having seen it since being here I was simply expecting it, but doesn't mean I appreciate the petty jab...I know his dogma well as he's not shy about piping up. Brother, all I can offer from where I stand is that there will be no gaining of ground to salvation by debating on the net. He is simply going to be thinking of a retort while reading your post. You & I do the same if there is an effort or remark that would attempt to make one lose our faith. Best solution would be to pray for him & leave what is out of your control to God. I just get a sense you are letting this steal some of your joy & that shouldn't be happening.
<><
Brother, we debate pretty much everything on this forum, guns, politics, religion you name it, we've pretty much debated it. The big debate now is cops debating cops over Derrick Chauvin and his trial, I've tried to just ask questions in that one simply because I'm not a cop and don't know the ins and outs of it, and have no cop experience from their point of view. If you look at my posts over the last months, I've tried to stay away from religion, and in the tech forums I never bring it up. I gave my view in this thread because John Lovell brought religion up in his video. I thought my comments were in keeping with the video. I will take your advice to heart and pray for him along with others. But keep in mind, I'm not debating because I like it, And I don't think my arguments in and of themselves convinces anyone of anything. God may or may not use my words for His Glory. But sometimes a Christian view from whomever here is required for truth sake. The country is failing, maybe failing from the beginning, and what are we going to say about it is going to be informed by something. For me it's the Bible, for others, who knows.
Steyr is a well respected member & adds a lot of value to the site...when the topic of the vacs passport came up & needing it for travel / commerce, I knew he was going to mock my post while I was typing out Revelations. It just doesn't bother me as the Word says Christians will be mocked. It's clear how he feels & I don't think any less of him, nor does it deter me from posting what's in my heart.
Good for you. And sorry if I'm extra flippant about "mark of the beast" but I've been listening to that ever since they declared UPCs to be the "mark" onto and including every new thing that comes along. Also understand that for the last 30 years I've lived in "fundamentalist central" so I've heard some extra cooky stuff.
Glad you get me, glad the stuff I say doesn't sway your beliefs, I wouldn't want that. Between you and I, I sorta wish I believed this stuff. I honestly think everyone who genuinely believes in an afterlife (except maybe Tom who spends a lot of time being upset) is a happier person. If I honestly and truly believed I'd see my loved ones again, I'd probably be a very happy and content person, but I find all "religion" unlikely.
BangBang77
04-07-21, 19:43
I believe my responsibility is to speak truth as I understand it according to His word.
To my fellow brethren on here, I heard a quote recently that spoke to me - "It's not our job to feed the multitude, it's our job to bring a few fishes and loaves, He will do the rest".
Good for you. And sorry if I'm extra flippant about "mark of the beast" but I've been listening to that ever since they declared UPCs to be the "mark" onto and including every new thing that comes along. Also understand that for the last 30 years I've lived in "fundamentalist central" so I've heard some extra cooky stuff.
Glad you get me, glad the stuff I say doesn't sway your beliefs, I wouldn't want that. Between you and I, I sorta wish I believed this stuff. I honestly think everyone who genuinely believes in an afterlife (except maybe Tom who spends a lot of time being upset) is a happier person. If I honestly and truly believed I'd see my loved ones again, I'd probably be a very happy and content person, but I find all "religion" unlikely.
As you can see Steyr from my last post to Artos, I'm not upset, feeling pretty good actually and if you asked my wife and even my unbelieving shooting "friends", I'm generally quite happy. Even in the face of having to give up my 3gun hobby because of the ammo/primer shortage. It brings me much happiness. I must admit though I can get upset when someone (not you) calls me a liar. Like I said, I do apologize for my anger and endeavor to change.
I believe my responsibility is to speak truth as I understand it according to His word.
To my fellow brethren on here, I heard a quote recently that spoke to me - "It's not our job to feed the multitude, it's our job to bring a few fishes and loaves, He will do the rest".
Amen, brother.
Good for you. And sorry if I'm extra flippant about "mark of the beast" but I've been listening to that ever since they declared UPCs to be the "mark" onto and including every new thing that comes along. Also understand that for the last 30 years I've lived in "fundamentalist central" so I've heard some extra cooky stuff.
Glad you get me, glad the stuff I say doesn't sway your beliefs, I wouldn't want that. Between you and I, I sorta wish I believed this stuff. I honestly think everyone who genuinely believes in an afterlife (except maybe Tom who spends a lot of time being upset) is a happier person. If I honestly and truly believed I'd see my loved ones again, I'd probably be a very happy and content person, but I find all "religion" unlikely.
No worries mate...it's all good & there has always been something about you that makes me think you will come around to understanding it's all about faith in your own time & not sure why?? I've always felt from our 'supernatural' debates over the years that it's just simply there inside you & at some point for whatever reason will open up, let go & figure out why others you mutually respect on this forum are devout in there beliefs that triggers curiosity. I've always said it's the most intelligent who take the longest to come around & you are right up there & have appreciated your participation in many discussions across the spectrum. It is not an X marks the spot internet knee slapping conviction or some 2x4 to the face...it's likely gonna be a tap on the shoulder & a slow stroll for you. You can walk & run away as long / far as you want, but only takes a simple stop with a 180 when it's your time amigo. Sorry if that came across corny, just felt right. Peace.
No worries mate...it's all good & there has always been something about you that makes me think you will come around to understanding it's all about faith in your own time & not sure why?? I've always felt from our 'supernatural' debates over the years that it's just simply there inside you & at some point for whatever reason will open up, let go & figure out why others you mutually respect on this forum are devout in there beliefs that triggers curiosity. I've always said it's the most intelligent who take the longest to come around & you are right up there & have appreciated your participation in many discussions across the spectrum. It is not an X marks the spot internet knee slapping conviction or some 2x4 to the face...it's likely gonna be a tap on the shoulder & a slow stroll for you. You can walk & run away as long / far as you want, but only takes a simple stop with a 180 when it's your time amigo. Sorry if that came across corny, just felt right. Peace.
So this one is kinda easy.
First I don't object to the notion of a creator. Having absolutely no evidence either for or against, I would not be honest if I said can't happen. This is why I'm stuck hard at agnostic.
Philosophically a "creator" doesn't solve my big questions, it simply relocates the question. Where did it all come from and how did it start simply becomes where did the creator come from and how did that begin?
But while I can't object to the idea of a creator (which makes basic deism possible) I find the judeo christian creator Yahweh unlikely for personal reason which aren't worth being debated. But if it turns out that Yahweh is real (stranger things have happened I suppose) then being omnipotent he knows my mind and what I require as far as basic evidence of existence. So balls in his court if he wishes to save me or not, assuming he exists of course.
These are basically my ground rules for any deity who wishes to form a relationship with me that will last forever.
As you can see Steyr from my last post to Artos, I'm not upset, feeling pretty good actually and if you asked my wife and even my unbelieving shooting "friends", I'm generally quite happy. Even in the face of having to give up my 3gun hobby because of the ammo/primer shortage. It brings me much happiness. I must admit though I can get upset when someone (not you) calls me a liar. Like I said, I do apologize for my anger and endeavor to change.
If a person who you don't know calling you a liar on the internet makes you upset, imagine how you might feel if you take the time to explain your basic belief system and philosophy of life and someone reduces it to a "routine" and a gimmick they use to dismiss the beliefs of others.
If a person who you don't know calling you a liar on the internet makes you upset, imagine how you might feel if you take the time to explain your basic belief system and philosophy of life and someone reduces it to a "routine" and a gimmick they use to dismiss the beliefs of others.
Fair enough, so what is your motive(s) to your questions and your responses? You told Artos it wasn't to change his mind, I'll assume you're not trying to change my mind.
So this one is kinda easy.
First I don't object to the notion of a creator. Having absolutely no evidence either for or against, I would not be honest if I said can't happen. This is why I'm stuck hard at agnostic.
Philosophically a "creator" doesn't solve my big questions, it simply relocates the question. Where did it all come from and how did it start simply becomes where did the creator come from and how did that begin?
But while I can't object to the idea of a creator (which makes basic deism possible) I find the judeo christian creator Yahweh unlikely for personal reason which aren't worth being debated. But if it turns out that Yahweh is real (stranger things have happened I suppose) then being omnipotent he knows my mind and what I require as far as basic evidence of existence. So balls in his court if he wishes to save me or not, assuming he exists of course.
These are basically my ground rules for any deity who wishes to form a relationship with me that will last forever.
Fair enough & Like I said...there is no x marks the spot vs the tap on the shoulder I suspect that is coming from interacting with you over the years. I like your thinking / ground rules & been there myself. Sorta complicated & suggest we lighten up & roll with the punches from here on out on our 'supernatural' replies on volatile topics. I don't want to bicker on the obvious & my goal is to not take the thread topic down the proverbial dirt road. Let's do our best to best to avoid the said derailing we've been guilty of in the past. Please Call me out if I drift.
Fair enough, so what is your motive(s) to your questions and your responses? You told Artos it wasn't to change his mind, I'll assume you're not trying to change my mind.
It's an interesting discussion.
Part of it of course is objections to things like any for of establishment religion (which you engage in from time to time) and I obviously couldn't disagree more.
Another part of it is what is sometimes the philosophical discussion which is interesting regardless of agreement. And while it's true that you will probably never change my mind and I'm unlikely and wouldn't want to change yours it's sorta like discussing theoretical astrophysics. There is probably no way we will get any closer to a stronger understanding in my lifetime and there are some things we will likely never know for sure, it sure is interesting to discuss what might be.
It is also worth noting that there are lots and lots of people I'd never even bother to attempt a discussion with them because I don't respect them enough to have any kind of ongoing discourse on any subject and I feel confident that most people here are secure enough in their faith that my views aren't going to shake their faith.
Like I said to FF a few pages back, we are just having a conversation. And it's far more interesting than the usual politics and nonsense.
Fair enough & Like I said...there is no x marks the spot vs the tap on the shoulder I suspect that is coming from interacting with you over the years. I like your thinking / ground rules & been there myself. Sorta complicated & suggest we lighten up & roll with the punches from here on out on our 'supernatural' replies on volatile topics. I don't want to bicker on the obvious & my goal is to not take the thread topic down the proverbial dirt road. Let's do our best to best to avoid the said derailing we've been guilty of in the past. Please Call me out if I drift.
Will do my best. And again didn't mean to call you out personally, just knew that was coming. Not sure your age group but in the 1970s when they rolled out the Universal Product Code (and keeping in mind this was before the internet) I remember the astonishingly large groups of people who declared that "this is it, this is what the bible was talking about and now it's really here" and even though I was just a kid I was amazed that people really believed that.
There were people my parents knew who actually vowed they would no longer shop at grocery stores because UPCs were the mark of the beast and they weren't going to participate in that. They started buying stuff from things like farmers markets and similar, not sure how long that lasted. So I probably am guilty of a knee jerk reaction to that sort of thing. Now when people are forced to get some kind of tattoo or brand on their actual body in order to buy or sell goods, then I will remain silent even if I don't actually believe in satan.
Born in the late 60's & don't recall that...was probably too busy playing outside & drinking water from a garden hose. For believers the end times started for folks soon after the cross I reckon & I'm sure it was called during every major war / papers please & other pandemics. Having to prove you got the jab to travel & buy / sell goods is down right creepy & certainly struck a chord to that verse with many as it spells exactly that very act out.
Having said that, His word says nobody but God knows upon when His return is coming so anyone claiming end times as fact is simply stating their opinion like everyone else the past 2000 years.
Will do my best. And again didn't mean to call you out personally, just knew that was coming. Not sure your age group but in the 1970s when they rolled out the Universal Product Code (and keeping in mind this was before the internet) I remember the astonishingly large groups of people who declared that "this is it, this is what the bible was talking about and now it's really here" and even though I was just a kid I was amazed that people really believed that.
There were people my parents knew who actually vowed they would no longer shop at grocery stores because UPCs were the mark of the beast and they weren't going to participate in that. They started buying stuff from things like farmers markets and similar, not sure how long that lasted. So I probably am guilty of a knee jerk reaction to that sort of thing. Now when people are forced to get some kind of tattoo or brand on their actual body in order to buy or sell goods, then I will remain silent even if I don't actually believe in satan.
If you're interested, this sort of thinking flows from a fairly recent development in end times theology. From about 1830. It's call dispensationalism, and it flowed out of the feverish mind of a man name John Nelson Darby. Some call it futurism. It has it's roots in the writings of a Jesuit named Francisco Ribera in the 16th century. He was the seed planter for this theology. It's a way of interpreting Revelation and some other scripture to move the idea into the distant future that the "man of sin", "the son of perdition", "THE anti-Christ" and the "whore of Babylon" was not the the Roman papacy. If this super villian was predicted to be off in the future it couldn't be the papacy. Another Jesuit about the same time was writing that the history of Revelation had actually occurred not in the future for the most part, but was fulfilled in the 1st century, anti-Christ being someone like Nero. It morphed into the present day preterism. Pretty much all the protestant reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries took a view of Revelation that it was a flowing history of the church and that the papacy was THE Anti-Christ among the many little anti-Christs. Over time much of evangelicalism imbibed this Jesuit eschatology in the form of dispensationalism through Darby, then C.I. Scofield. Over the the last 190 years Christians caught up in this theology have speculated about who the anti-Christ is and what the mark is. There is a lot more to dispensationalism than this, but this will give you some idea where and why things like UPC's being the mark came from. I consider dispensationalism to be heterodox at best and probably a destructive heresy (not damnable) at worst. It has fueled pretty much all the Christian Zionism you see today.
It's an interesting discussion.
Part of it of course is objections to things like any for of establishment religion (which you engage in from time to time) and I obviously couldn't disagree more.
Another part of it is what is sometimes the philosophical discussion which is interesting regardless of agreement. And while it's true that you will probably never change my mind and I'm unlikely and wouldn't want to change yours it's sorta like discussing theoretical astrophysics. There is probably no way we will get any closer to a stronger understanding in my lifetime and there are some things we will likely never know for sure, it sure is interesting to discuss what might be.
It is also worth noting that there are lots and lots of people I'd never even bother to attempt a discussion with them because I don't respect them enough to have any kind of ongoing discourse on any subject and I feel confident that most people here are secure enough in their faith that my views aren't going to shake their faith.
Like I said to FF a few pages back, we are just having a conversation. And it's far more interesting than the usual politics and nonsense.
Thank you for your answers. If you are saying that it interests you in a sort of academic way and that you feel compelled to object to some of things I say, possibly for the benefit of other, I can respect that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.