[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton
Source: TheWeek
URL Source: http://theweek.com/articles/569184/ ... shing-weakness-hillary-clinton
Published: Jul 31, 2015
Author: Michael Brendan Dougherty
Post Date: 2015-07-31 10:43:17 by Tooconservative
Ping List: *2016 The Likely Suspects*     Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Keywords: None
Views: 6761
Comments: 124

Hillary Clinton is as unpopular as she ever has been. Her favorability ratings have fallen to just 40 percent. Her campaign is already heading south, even though she has serious advantages over everyone else in the campaign, both Democratic and Republican.

Her opponents in the Democratic field do not pose a plausible mathematical threat. Bernie Sanders can attract huge crowds in college towns, but he is going nowhere with the African-American voters who would be key to building an anti-Clinton Democratic primary coalition. Martin O'Malley's record, shaped by his transition from the Baltimore mayoralty to the Maryland statehouse, has made him radioactive to an activist Democratic base that wants criminal justice reform and that winces when a politician like him says, "All Lives Matter." Clinton is thus free to define her agenda apart from them.

Because the Republican field is startlingly unanimous in its positions, Clinton has the opportunity of running against a coherent platform, while picking out its weakest spokesperson on every individual issue. She can run against Trump on immigration, against Huckabee on social issues, against Walker on foreign policy.

But it's an opportunity that she has so far passed over. Perhaps she doesn't want to get bogged down in actual policy details, always unpopular with an electorate that grows fat on cliché but retches at details.

Still, it means that the entirety of Clinton's campaign has alternated between distancing herself from the legacy of her family name, and stonewalling reporters investigating one scandal or another. In the first category, she has repudiated the tough-on-crime policies of her husband. She has strongly embraced gay marriage even though her previous support for traditional marriage was, according to Clinton, rooted in timeless religious principles. She has joined the new gender politics, despite her own history of slut-shaming her husband's mistresses. Calling Bill's pump-and-dump paramours "trailer trash" and "narcissistic loony tunes" is understandable in my own view, but considered impolitic today.

Hillary Clinton has never won a competitive election. This can't be repeated enough. She beat Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for her Senate seat in 2000. And she defeated a mayor from Yonkers in 2006. In her first competitive race, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, she began as a heavy favorite and she lost.

What has she done to improve her chances in that time? She's aged well, I guess. And she served without distinction as secretary of state. The most notable addition to her CV was her strenuous support of military intervention in Libya, which has left that nation in ruins and vulnerable to ISIS. In turn, Libya has left Clinton with a new scandal about her home-brew email server and the deletion of thousands of emails that congressional oversight might have used against her.

She has high name-recognition. Until she started campaigning she was polling well even with Republicans. She has the Obama coalition, and an electoral map where Republicans need significant pickups. But boy, it all seems underwhelming. What is the task for Democrats in the post-Obama era? Why is Clinton the one to take on this mission?

After achieving a policy almost approximating universal health care, the dream of Democrats since Harry Truman, what are the Democrats to do? Are they pro-globalization? Do they have ideas for integrating the great wave of immigration to America that has occurred over the past 50 years? Do they have anything to offer the dying white working class? Are they for reforming any of America's major institutions?

Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment. The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality. The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs. The "Smart Power" leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush. A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern. The wife of a man who flies on the "Lolita Express" with a porn star that was booked for "massages." The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor.

Is this really the best the Democrats can do? Yes, and that should worry them.


Poster Comment:

After a few weeks of Trumpsterism, the GOP has forgotten about Hitlery altogether. But she is self-destructing from her own scandals and repulsive public persona. Her name recognition and reputation are sky-high. And that is her biggest problem. The Dems know who and what she is. I think the writer overlooked just how repulsive her major Wall Street banking connections are with Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Chase, the new UBS scandal, etc. That's pure poison to the Dem base voters, the bulwark of the Occupy Wall Street types. And the Xlintons are still loathed by the Obama Dem establishment.Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 102.

#3. To: TooConservative (#0)

Not a bad article, but I can sum it up in fewer words:

The ruling party will determine whether or not all of its election fraud, stuffing ballot boxes, and illegal immigrant voting will be enough to get a flawed candidate like Hilliary Xlinton elected.

It may or may not be - the jury's still out on that one.

But since the ruling party will decide who the republican branch candidate will be, they'll just have to ensure Xlinton's "opponent" will be the Jebster - another flawed candidate.

Jebster or Xlinton. Doesn't matter.

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-07-31   11:54:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Rufus T Firefly (#3)

Jebster or Xlinton. Doesn't matter.

Despite their similarities, there will be significant differences in the outcomes from those two. Appointees to the Supreme Court, etc.

I'd say too little difference but not "no difference".

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   13:26:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: TooConservative (#5)

Despite their similarities, there will be significant differences in the outcomes from those two. Appointees to the Supreme Court, etc.

There will indeed be differences between the Supreme Court appointees.

Democrat Supreme Court appointees will be reliably liberal on all things. Pick the issue, and you can virtually guarantee how the Democrat appointees will vote. Since we haven't had a Supreme Court controlled by Democrat appointees since 1969, we can expect that if Democrats get control of the court, they will continue to act in lock-step with their ideology, as they always have.

Republican Court appointees will be reliably corporate capitalist. The Kelo decision and the "corporations are people too" campaign finance funding are reliable Republican positions. Republican Presidents can be relied upon to make sure, through their appointments, that a pro-choice majority sits on the Court.

So the real choice between Democrats and Republicans is the welfare state economy and the crony capitalist economy. That is really what the fight is over.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   13:54:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#6) (Edited)

So the real choice between Democrats and Republicans is the welfare state economy and the crony capitalist economy.

There is one party - the Ruling Party - and it has D and R branches. I've been saying this for years.

I see a lot of views posted that go back to a bygone era - which probably ended circa 1950

The view you have - quoted above: Why do you say that, when you have billionaires like Soros and Buffett that LOVE the crony capitalism - so by your measure they should be republicans.

Yet they are democrats.

What gives?

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-07-31   14:43:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Rufus T Firefly (#11)

The view you have - quoted above: Why do you say that, when you have billionaires like Soros and Buffett that LOVE the corporate capitalism - so by your measure they should be republicans.

Yet they are democrats.

What gives?

Some billionaires give huge amounts to charity. And some of them, I think Warren Buffett is one, did not start out as billionaires and, for all of their wealth and their experience, still do have their eye on what is best for all.

They actively seek what is good for them, but they don't want, say, their fellow Nebraskans to be in poverty either. They know how to make themselves rich, and they know what is needed to make life for everybody else tolerable too.

They act on what makes themselves rich, but they're not kings and cannot simply wave a wand and make things better for everybody else - that takes legal change. And they will not simply impoverish themselves - they won't give it away so that somebody ELSE can be rich and rule the roost like they do. They genuinely want to change the system ITSELF so that those who are not ruling the roost have it somewhat better.

Most billionaires are nothing like that, and billionaires who came from nothing are frequently uncharitable. All billionaires are hard-minded. I think that some of them, Perot and Buffett in particular, really DO give a damn about their fellow men.

And they are smart, and sit on top of the economic system of the world, so they have better information, better knowledge, a more complete picture, and are also just simply more intelligent when it comes to finance and managing things than regular people.

And those guys, in America, trend Democrat. The reason why is pretty basic.

First, it has nothing to do with Christianity. These men are not Christians. They are secular humanists. They support abortion because they see the alternative as overpopulation and increased human misery from unwanted children. They don't believe there is a caring God who will supply aid. They think that extra babies who are unwanted is a pure deadweight loss on society, increasing misery.

Obviously I do not agree with them. But then, I know God. They don't, and they are operating on logical, financial principles and worried about the people on the bottom. Truth is, when poor people and teenagers have babies, they and the babies are headed for a life of struggle, suffering and probably crime. That is why seculars like Buffett are pro-choice. It is not a matter of supporting sexual libertinism. It is because they see abortion as the only realistic way to stop human misery, in a real world and universe in which (they believe) there is in fact no God to assist anything or anybody. Because they are not religious, they do not moralize about sex.

And because they see the obvious economic and social implications of "pro- life", and know all of the suffering that will come from more unwanted babies, they have no patience of Christians, Muslims and - to their view - other superstitious and unrealistic nutjobs inflicting massive hardship and pain on people in order to respect the laws of a God that does not exist. In the real word, unwanted pregnancy means poverty, welfare, crime and suffering. Therefore, secular billionaires are all pro-choice, and the Democrat Party is unapologetically pro-choice.

Republicans, by contrast, are flagrant liars. Their decisions in courts and in laws is pro-choice, but they go out there and stir up the ignorant Christian rabble with lies - that they'll stop abortion (they don't intend to), and with half-gestures.

So, that's the first part. Billionaires are practical, successful, worldly people. They are not strong believers in God, and even to the extent they are nominal Christians, they are liberal Christians or Jews who flatly reject the superstitious nonsense of Christians, as they see it, and they also reject the deceit and bad policy proposals of Republicans, driven by the Republican desire to pander to a base of ignorant zealots who know nothing and who need to be ignored - for their own good! - not encouraged.

That is brick one.

Brick two is purely economic. The billionaires at the top, with a heart to go with their brains, recognize that people have needs. All people. They know the cost of retirement and of health care and education, because they provide those benefits. They have the big picture, and they recognize that government is the only POSSIBLE source of finance for retirement, education and medical costs. It cannot be done universally for a profit. Sure, the private sector can profit on the broad middle where there is profit to made in treating boo- boos, but when it comes to the six-sigma disasters - the father who, having just seen sextuplets born, comes down with pancreatic cancer that can only be cured by a $10 million dollar treatment - those people cannot ever be profitably covered. Yet they MUST be.

So, the billionaires who care about their fellow men strongly support universal Social Security, and want it strengthened to be THE full retirement program, so that all of the money that currently goes into expensive and ineffective private programs instead goes into the federal coffers. They support universal health insurance. They want to see education improved across the board, and college made a birthright.

And they are internationalists who see people as people, and therefore do not support slamming shut the border.

Now, middle class people, who do not really understand economics or finance but who often think they do, frequently oppose the broad social programs that the billionaires who care see are VITAL to social stability and reasonable standards of living for all. So these middle class people, ignoramuses relative to the billionaries - vocally OPPOSE necessary things, calling them "Socialists". The billionaires know that is absurd. They're not socialists, they're capitalists. But they recognize that if the government doesn't do it, there will be calamity and social unrest. So they support the Democrats because the Democrats, again, are the only party that unabashedly supports those programs that the socially-conscious billionaires see as needful.

That is precisely why the Buffets of the world vote Democrat. Milionairs who aspire to be billionaires vote Republican. Top billionaires vote Democrat. That's why.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   15:06:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Republicans, by contrast, are flagrant liars. Their decisions in courts and in laws is pro-choice, but they go out there and stir up the ignorant Christian rabble with lies - that they'll stop abortion (they don't intend to), and with half-gestures.

Your posts seem more often then not to be contradictory.

As usual you broadbrush Republicans as "flagrant liars." Yes, one wing of the party certainly are. That would be the hypocritical establishment Republican Wing.

Can you please clarify:

1) Exactly WHICH Republicans are doing the "lying" and "stirring"?
2) Of which specific "lies" do you speak?
3) And exactly which Christians do you consider "rabble"?

The point you never seem to comprehend or concede is that ONLY within the Republican Party are pro-life legislators. There is only so much they can do, considering there is the House, the Senate, and veto power of the Executive office. BESIDES a corrupt Supreme Court. The power of individual Republicans (pro-lifers comprise most of the conservative wing) are limited by the stench of the ruling wing of the Republican Party -- RINOs, aka the establishment Republicans. Do you understand the difference? And do you concede that there are ZERO Democrats who support the pro-life position?

Democrats, again, are the only party that unabashedly supports those programs that the socially-conscious billionaires see as needful.

What you perceive of Democrats as compassion and addressing the "needful" is anything BUT. Democrats have by design created a constituency and class of voters who are TOTALLY dependent on FREE STUFF. You believe the Dems lie, then compound it by believing your own lie.

Social programs were originally intended as a safety net for the unfortunate and those unable to care for themselves; NOT the "Entitlement" you seem to believe is a God-given right. The Bible speaks of Charity. NOT Grand Larceny in the name of constituency-building and enslavement. The wealth redistribution you apparently advocate is illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional.

You're either willfully ignorant of the truth, or live in fantasy-land. Billionaires are all about quashing the middle class and building their empires. They are NOT the humanitarians and philanthropists you seem to envision. America is only a vehicle for the majority of them.

Democrats? They "unabashedly" endorse "kinda-spreading-the-wealth-around" which is BS-Speak for STEALING blood and sweat from SOME, and giving it to OTHERS. As a means of remaining in power. They accomplish this retention of personal and political power via coercion, threats, or at the barrel of a gun. That's a strange ethic to advocate. Never mind justifying it as Bible-chic.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-31   16:14:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Liberator (#15)

Can you please clarify:

1) Exactly WHICH Republicans are doing the "lying" and "stirring"? 2) Of which specific "lies" do you speak? 3) And exactly which Christians do you consider "rabble"?

Exactly WHICH Republicans?

For starters: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell.

The specific lies? Well, Reagan went out there courting the "Moral Majority" with his pro-life schtick. Of course, like Romney, when he was Governor of California, Reagan was pro-choice, supporting the abortion law. And Reagan installed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. A "pro-lifer" Republican? No. A lying panderer. The Moral Majority bought it then, hook, line and sinker.

But since then we've had Bush put Souter on the court, and another Bush try to put Harriet Miers on the Court. We've had Romney create Romneycare, on which Obamacare is pattered, and populate it with state-funded abortion as a matter of right. And we had Romney himself, pretending to be pro-life. And we've got the Republican Senate, just now, pass through Planned Parenthood funding on a snap voice vote, to get it done before the controversy could stop it, and to do it all off the record.

All of those Republican leaders are liars. All of those things they have done are lies, when they hold themselves out as a pro-life party.

Now, back in the day, the Moral Majority were not rabble as such. They were sincere pro-lifers who expected their political will to be advanced by the party they supported.

But NOW, after THIRTY YEARS OF BETRAYALS, 30 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT with abortion as entrenched as ever, 20 of those years having Republican Presidents...who appointed 3 clear pro-abortion Justices to the Supreme Court.

(Democrats NEVER appoint anybody who is not a loyal partisan - AND REPUBLICANS DON'T EITHER. SO, the fact that Republicans name pro-choice Justice after pro- choice Justice to the Court, ensuring that the pro-choice contingent is always the majority, is not some ACCIDENT, it IS the policy of the Republican Party - to CLAIM to be pro-life while quietly and effectively upholding abortion. Reagan installed abortion in California and appointed 2 pro-choicers to the Supreme Court, Bush appointed a pro-choicer, the second tried appoint a fourth, and did appoint two justices who are untested on abortion...but we've got John Roberts twice upholding Obamacare. And Romney. And now the Republican Senate funding Planned Tissue Harvesting of Babies "Parenthood".)

30 years on, it is perfectly obvious that the Republican Party is not pro- life. IT is perfectly obvious that they are crony capitalists who LIE about being pro-life in order to capture the Christian vote, of the old Moral Majority.

It is perfectly obvious that the Moral Majority were DUPED by these Republican liars.

So, who are the Christian rabble?

They are the Christian pro-lifers who, after 30 years of betrayal by a Republican Supreme court and every single Republican President from Reagan on, and also by every recent Republican Presidential nominee, and just this past week by the Republican Senate - Christian pro-lifers who persist in being Republican on the absurd insistence that the Republicans are "pro-life" - THEY are the Christians who are rabble. What they are, are partisan fools who refuse to open their eyes or learn anything from experience.

The Bible speaks about wealth redistribution, both testaments. The Bible makes it clear that this is mandatory for anybody who wants to go to Heaven. If one refuses to accept that, he defies God and is "Christian" rabble.

Most billionaires are about getting rich and using their money to get richer, and dominating everything. A few of them are philanthropists. The question I was asked, and which I answered, was why they vote Democrat. That was what I answered.

Now I've answered you.

You have decided to make defense of the Republican Party a point of honor. It's a pity, because you have far more honor than they do.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   17:20:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

The Bible speaks about wealth redistribution, both testaments. The Bible makes it clear that this is mandatory for anybody who wants to go to Heaven. If one refuses to accept that, he defies God and is "Christian" rabble.

"My Kingdom is not of this World"
~Jesus, Gospel of St. John, chapter 18 verse 36

This is the way I understand Scripture. Judaeo-Christian belief tells us that the only God controlled earthly government that ever existed was in the Garden of Eden. Man, being what he was, messed that up. From then on, we have been on our own.

In the Old Testament, God DID have representatives (spokesmen, if you will) who made His will known to the people. The people could listen to these Judges and later, prophets. (or not). There IS after all that thing called "free will" that God put in us.

The people looked around, saw all the other nations had "kings", and decided they wanted a king, too. (Gee, kind of sounds like "all other countries have socialized health care. We need to have it, too." But I won't go there now.)

The Israelite's desire for a king frustrated the prophet Samuel, but God told him "they have not rejected you, they have rejected Me." (I Samuel 8:7). So God gave them Saul, and it didn't work out so well. David followed, then the wisest king, Solomon. That was pretty much the high water mark for Israel. Many kings -some good, but most bad - followed after that. Eventually, like all EARTHLY kingdoms, Israel divided, then fell to its enemies.

Not to get too deep in the weeds here, but the main point is that while Israel was referred to as "God's chosen people" (Exodus 19:6; Deut. 7:6), they (as individuals or a nation) were never denied their free will.

They had the free will to follow the Mosaic laws and its sacrificial system. Or not. They could reconcile themselves to God and presumably reside with Him in the afterlife. Or not.

There was a 400 year inter-testimental period between Malachi the prophet, and the Advent of the Christ (i.e. Messiah)

When Our Lord came on the scene, Israel was far from being the kingdom it once was. It was just a province, a backwater, of the mighty Roman Empire. The Jews were a conquered people (they, understandably, didn't like it one bit)

Several of Jesus' disciples were revolutionaries who misunderstood His talk of a kingdom as being an Earthly one vs. a Heavenly one. They saw Him as their ticket to throw off Roman rule and re-establish Israel. Simon the Zealot, and likely Judas, are two who fell into this category. There may have been others.

That, of course, isn't what Jesus was about then. It's not what He's about now.

I have to respectfully disagree with you when you imply that "works" is a prerequisite for entering Heaven. John 3:16-18 gives us the roadmap for entering Heaven. Our pitiful and pathetic works cannot add to His perfect sacrifice.

Now I know that you are RC and I am not, and there are honest, theological differences. My purpose isn't really to debate those, here.

But let me close with this: You and I, though we follow different Christian doctrines, can likely agree on this: God is absolutely the HIGHEST AUTHORITY there is.

Yet he DOES NOT require us to obey Him - to follow Him. He (way back at Creation) gave us Free Will.

An all powerful government, however; one that you envision with the resources to provide cradle-to-grave care; will NEVER allow free will. You follow and do what the government says, OR ELSE.

You may not intend it or mean it that way, but I see your all-powerful government as putting itself ABOVE God. And one of the things both the Old and New Testaments agree on - God does not bless those who put themselves above Him.

That goes for governments as well as individuals.

Finally, caring for the poor and infirm has always been an INDIVIDUAL commandment. The entire theme of the book of James in the Bible is "Faith without works is Dead" (James 2:14-26). In other words, if we are to follow Christ and trust in Him, we will "naturally" want to do what pleases Him. (i.e. feed, clothe, otherwise help the poor and less fortunate than ourselves)

WE are commanded to do so. NOT our governments.

You can argue passionately (as you have done) for big government, cradle-to-grave solutions to all of mankind's ills. You can search (but I do not think you will find) a humanistic Utopia.

People have been searching in vain for that throughout history - perhaps you'll succeed.

I just caution that when you say that GOVERNMENTS are commanded to do by God what we - as individuals - should be doing, that you are on shaky theological ground.

And I'm not even a Theologian :-)

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-08-01   21:29:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Rufus T Firefly (#83)

This is the way I understand Scripture. Judaeo-Christian belief tells us that the only God controlled earthly government that ever existed was in the Garden of Eden. Man, being what he was, messed that up. From then on, we have been on our own.

Rufus, go back and read Exodus through Deuteronomy. They are a divine constitution for Israel, which God established as his people. Now read Joshua and see how it is directed. Then read how, when the people clamored for a king in the time of Samuel, that God told Samuel that they were not rejecting him (Samuel), but rather, were rejecting Him (God) as their king.

So you need to adjust your understanding of Scripture. God established and ruled a full on kingdom, with people and territory. He gave it all of its laws, and established how everything was to be. He promised them that as long as they did it all, that he would be with them and they would have that land. He also promised them that if they refused to do what he told them, he would destroy them, drive them out and give the land over to others.

The enter Old Testament is an account of how God established a state and ran it, and how the Israelites kept breaking his laws, and how he kept calling them back. The Mosaic covenant does not have one thing to do with eternal life or final judgment. There is nothing anywhere in it about any of those things. It's all about Israel and the laws of the people in Israel.

To get to the promise of eternal life for obeying a law, you have to come forward to Jesus.

In the Old Testament, the state that God set up had a very heavy charitable component written into the laws. That was what the tithe of the Levites was FOR: poverty relief. It was why interest on loans was prohibited to Israelites, why Israelites had to loan each otter money, why debts were forgiven after 6 years, why Israelites could not be sold as slaves, why children had the obligation to care for their parents, and vice versa. and why there was a skein of complicated laws regarding slaves that essentially gave each slave the "out" of becoming an Israelite and worshiping God, transmuting his slavery into indentured servitude.

That's what it actually says.

When we come to Jesus, who calls the whole world, not just the Jews of Israel, there is a great deal regarding poverty relief, including the stern warning that when the poor cry out, as you treat them, you treat Him, and will be judged accordingly.

The entire Scripture drips with concern for fellow men, and warns not to make idols, and not to break the law over money.

A heresy has arisen among Christians that exalts the charging of interest and pretends - contrary to what Jesus SAID - that treating the poor right is optional, a matter of personal choice. Well, sure it is. Just like killing somebody is a personal choice. But if you make the wrong choice, you get thrown into the flames.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-01   22:30:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Vicomte13 (#84)

Rufus, go back and read Exodus through Deuteronomy. They are a divine constitution for Israel, which God established as his people. Now read Joshua and see how it is directed. Then read how, when the people clamored for a king in the time of Samuel, that God told Samuel that they were not rejecting him (Samuel), but rather, were rejecting Him (God) as their king.

So you need to adjust your understanding of Scripture. God established and ruled a full on kingdom, with people and territory. He gave it all of its laws, and established how everything was to be. He promised them that as long as they did it all, that he would be with them and they would have that land. He also promised them that if they refused to do what he told them, he would destroy them, drive them out and give the land over to others.

The enter Old Testament is an account of how God established a state and ran it, and how the Israelites kept breaking his laws, and how he kept calling them back. The Mosaic covenant does not have one thing to do with eternal life or final judgment. There is nothing anywhere in it about any of those things. It's all about Israel and the laws of the people in Israel.

What you've described thus far is a Theocracy. It still requires an intermediary - that is, a person(s) in the middle, between the Ruler (God) and the ruled. In your examples, He's not there in physical form.

Because it was a theocracy, there was no distance between the civil law and the Mosaic law - it was one and the same.

My point with the Garden of Eden reference was that was the only time in Scripture (that I am aware of) that God was on the scene ruling in physical form. That was the point I was attempting to make.

In any event, there are no Christian or Old Testament theocracies around today, so it's a moot point.

I will possibly concede your point about the Law vis-a-vis eternal life. I always thought that in the Old Testament, keeping the Law was a prerequesite for eternal life.

Like I said, I'm not a theologian, and we're running the risk of getting into the theological weeds.

To get to the promise of eternal life for obeying a law, you have to come forward to Jesus.

My only response to that is once again John 3:16-18. Simple and straightforward.

In the Old Testament, the state that God set up had a very heavy charitable component written into the laws. That was what the tithe of the Levites was FOR: poverty relief. It was why interest on loans was prohibited to Israelites, why Israelites had to loan each otter money, why debts were forgiven after 6 years, why Israelites could not be sold as slaves, why children had the obligation to care for their parents, and vice versa. and why there was a skein of complicated laws regarding slaves that essentially gave each slave the "out" of becoming an Israelite and worshiping God, transmuting his slavery into indentured servitude.

That's what it actually says.

Once again, you've described a Theocracy. It's interesting, but has no relevance to governments today (and certainly not the gov't in DC)

When we come to Jesus, who calls the whole world, not just the Jews of Israel,

Yes

there is a great deal regarding poverty relief, including the stern warning that when the poor cry out, as you treat them, you treat Him, and will be judged accordingly.

The entire Scripture drips with concern for fellow men, and warns not to make idols, and not to break the law over money.

A heresy has arisen among Christians that exalts the charging of interest and pretends - contrary to what Jesus SAID - that treating the poor right is optional, a matter of personal choice. Well, sure it is. Just like killing somebody is a personal choice. But if you make the wrong choice, you get thrown into the flames.

You're not advocating we become a Theocracy, are you? I - as a Christian - am I hope not unusual in my admiration of what the Founders tried to do when they decided not to have an official State religion.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I truly believe that separation of Church and State (as they meant it, not necessarily how it's practiced today) is the best for the advancement of Christianity.

We (as Christians) should believe that - Christianity is, after all, the Truth. Can we say otherwise and still consider ourselves Christian?

Finally - In my previous post to you, I made the observation that an all-powerful government (which you seem to advocate) runs the risk of placing itself on a level above a Sovereign God. I made the statement that God will not bless anything (individual or group of individuals) that do so. In fact, God's wrath will come against them.

One - had you thought of that angle?

Two - if you had not thought of that angle, does it change at all your desire to see that all powerful government providing all those benefits because of some supposed God connection?

I agree with much of what you say - your posts provoke thought. I share your concern about the poor, and my wife and I (without getting into specifics - only we, God, the IRS, and Turbo-tax know) go way above and beyond the Tithe.

It's an individual - not a government - thing.

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-08-01   23:35:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Rufus T Firefly (#88)

What you've described thus far is a Theocracy. It still requires an intermediary - that is, a person(s) in the middle, between the Ruler (God) and the ruled. In your examples, He's not there in physical form.

Yes, Rufus, it was a theocracy, a direct theocracy, and yes, the intermediary was very much there in physical form. It's all there in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and then repeated in Deuteronomy. Joshua shows it unfolding. Judges shows hundreds of years of it working as designed. But then with Samuel and forward through the Kings and Chronicles, we see it fall apart as men reject God and go for a human king. The kings are all terrible. Saul is terrible. David, the beloved, turns out to be a killer and an adulterer, and the product of his license is civil war. Solomon, "wisest man ever", falls utterly into sexual license, adopts and protects all sorts of pagan rituals, and leaves the country a financial mess which promptly falls apart at his death, never to be reunited. Then we get century after century of civil war, mostly terrible kings, a handful of kings who try to be good but who won't enforce the WHOLE law…and finally God throws Israel to the Assyrians, Judah to the Babylonians. Chastized, he brings them back and, under Persian overlordship, lets them have a little rump state again. They set the forms back up again, but go back to religious indifference. The Greeks come and try to impose Hellenism, the Jews revolt, gain a temporary independence, are acquired by the Romans and start to resist them. God sends his Son to open a new chapter - 90% of the Jews reject them, and Jesus pronounces the doom clauses of Deuteronomy - the part of the covenant that says that if the Hebrews DON'T obey the law, they will be utterly destroyed and driven out. He dies. And in that generation God sends the Romans to erase the Temple and the priesthood, making it no longer POSSIBLE for the Jews to obey the full law even if they wanted to. The law remains, with the promise of the land, BUT to get the land in peace the Jews had to follow the whole law, and God made it so they CAN'T - no priesthood, no Temple. Therefore, Israel can never be brought back. A western colony can be built by force in the land of Israel and call itself Israel, but it won't have the peace and prosperity God promised, because it's not the Israel of the covenant. There are no priests to perform the mandatory rites, they cannot just MAKE priests - the only priests acceptable to God are in one bloodline, and they died in 69 AD and cannot be found. Israel is over. The only thing that the old covenant ever promised the Hebrews was a peaceful and prosperous farm of their own in the land of Israel, IF (and ONLY if) they followed the whole law. If they didn't, the covenant promised them destruction and dispersion. Which is what they got, and what they will continue to have until the end of the world.

The only covenant that God offered to allow men to enter the City of God in the afterlife is the covenant of Christ. But that's not what we're talking about here, so let's stay focused on ancient Israel.

If we examine the government of ancient Israel, as God set it up, using Montesquieu's schematic of three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial, we find that there is PLENTY of physical, on-the-ground intermediary in God's system.

God set up Israel to be the EXAMPLE to all other people, and one of the reasons that he kept saving it even though it was rebellious towards him was because of the very bad example that it would give to the world, that God "could not save" "his own" people. This is an argument that Moses first makes to him, and is repeated in the Old Testament. After the incident of the golden calf, God tells Moses he's going to exterminate the Hebrews and give Moses leadership somewhere else. Moses begs God not to, and argues with God that if God did that, the Egyptians and everybody else around would say that God just led the Israelites out into the desert to slaughter them. God accepted the logic of that argument, and many times thereafter you hear his tell a prophet that the people will be smitten but not completely cut off, for his name's sake. God had a stake in the survival of Israel - his own reputation depended on it. And in truth, Israel didn't work out. The people rejected God.

But let's look at its government, as set up by God.

First, the Legislature. There was none. At all. God gave all the law, the entirety of it, to Moses (and a little bit through Joshua). One feature of the Law as God gave it was that the Hebrews were not to take one word out of it, but also they were not to ADD any words either. God gave the law, the ENTIRE law. He made it a sin to break his law. He made it a sin to not enforce his law. AND - very importantly - he made it a sin for any man to add so much as a single additional law.

God sat over Israel as legislator king. He made its laws perfect, foresaw and provided for everything, and specifically denied the Israelites ANY avenue for the making of so much as a single ordinance. There was no legislature, no city council. No tribal council. Nothing. No man in Israel, from the lowest peasant to the High Priest, had any power to make one single additional rule to bind men beyond what God gave in writing through Moses. To do so - to add one rule on any subject - was a defiance of God, a direct breach of the law that prohibited making any laws. God gave the WHOLE law, and he expressly denied the Israelites any power to make one single additional rule for themselves, in any situation, ever.

This is what FAITH required: that God, being God, foresaw everything, and that every circumstance that the men of Israel would ever encounter, until the end of time, was already foreseen by God in his law, and already provided for in that law, and that if men follow that law EXACTLY, without subtracting anything and without adding anything, it will work out best for them.

God wasn't just the SUPREME Legislator, he was the ONLY legislator. The Torah is a legal constitution, but it is one that contains every law or ordinance that Israel was ever permitted to have. It even told the Israelites how they were to make latrines.

So, in this sense, the Theocracy was real and absolute. Picture America. Now have a 300 page Constitution that contains every law, covering everything that is to be legislated, and has a clause in it that says that it can not be changed or amended ever, that none of the laws can be suspended, and that none of the laws can be added to. This constitution establishes the structure of government, and it provides no Congress, no State legislature, no city council, no local meeting - and indeed that expressly forbids any such group from ever making one additional rule, law, ordinance or statute, or modifying anything.

The physical presence of God as Legislator was that written book - the Torah - whose terms say that it is the ENTIRE law, ALL of the rules, from God, and that men never, until the end of time, have any right or power to ignore one single rule, or to add even a single rule, and that if they DO God will punish them. And then, within that book, we find no provision for so much as a representative town meeting. God never gave mankind the power to make law to govern other men. The making of law by men to dominate other men is ITSELF a sin, and the enforcement of that law by violent force, of police and armies, is murders.

The Legislative power belongs to God alone. The entire law is contained in the Torah and in Jesus, and it can never be changed. Except that Jesus DID change that, for he said to Peter and the Apostles: I give you the power of the keys - what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Jesus gave the Church a flexibility that YHWH never gave to the Hebrews. BUT, just as we saw with the Hebrews before them, the Church abused that power and killed people to enforce its laws.

Now let's look at the second branch, the Executive. God provided no permanent executive for Israel. The heads of families were executives for each family clan. The commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" means just exactly that: your father and mother have status over you, and you owe them honor - your entire life. Jesus makes it clear that this also means you owe them financial support for their entire lives. But past the family and the clan, Israel had no executive. In time of danger, God promised to send a Prophet as a war leader. And he did. Samson, Gideon, and so many others. God did not let Israel be destroyed. BUT the Israelites, once again, just as with the written law, had to have FAITH. Faith means Trust. They had to TRUST God that he would come through. As the Israelites saw the enemies massing around their borders, they had to remember that God saw all, and that when the time was right - in God's eyes and not before - that God would send them a prophetic commander to save them.

However, God did NOT give them a full-time King, or police force, or army. It was only to come together in crisis, and for victory, it had to wait on the prophetic supreme commander God would pick.

Note that God's insistence that men TRUST him - for that is what the word "to have faith" MEANS - it means TRUST that God will do what he said - is pervasive in the Bible. Christians have divided over what "Faith Alone" means, but it is much clearer if one looks that history of Israel.

God gave a law, and forbade them from making other "needful" laws. God's point was no, I've given the ENTIRE law, the things that are in it you don't think are needful will one day be, so you must keep it all even if it makes no sense to you. And the things you think are missing are not there for a reason, so you must not ADD any laws you think are "necessary", because if you do those laws you make will end up being a stumbling block that crushes you. I am God, and I see until the end of time. I have given you a complete, detailed law that governs everything about which there needs to a rule for your good. You must TRUST ME and follow all of those rules, even if you don't understand me. And when I tell you that you cannot make even ONE MORE RULE, that making additional rules is a sin, I mean that too. You may think that I have left something out, some rule you desperately NEED because of present circumstances. I am God, I foresaw all of your present circumstances, and I know that it is necessary for the times to come NEXT, that you cannot see, that you make no law governing that thing. I did not make a law, and you must discipline yourself to live WITHOUT additional laws. You cannot take any away, and you cannot add any. Only in this way can I promise that you will be able to peacefully and prosperously occupy your promised farms until the end of the world. If you change my law at all, you all be destroyed, because the very thing that I was protecting you against will come to be.

You must put ABSOLUTE TRUST in God. When you see enemies beyond the borders, you can call the army, to be ready, but you cannot march to war, or appoint a supreme commander. You must wait on God.

"But what if God doesn't send one?"

You of little faith! I said I would not permit Israel to be destroyed, and I will not. But if you go ahead and appoint your commander without me, if you do not wait on me to send my prophet in the time that is right for you, you will destroy yourselves.

That is what the Israelites did, too, by demanding a King. It is how Saul destroyed himself also. At the crucial moment, Samuel tarried. Saul went ahead without him, because he thought it militarily expedient, and took other decisions he considered good and expedient in light of the victory. And Samuel arrived and told Saul that in doing so he had alienated God. Saul, the King, was to SIT THERE, and let the opportunity pass, and WAIT FOR GOD.

This requires FAITH - FAITH that God will provide a better result. When men add laws, or subtract laws, they end up destroying any possibility of their long-term happiness and peace. When men take up command and take up the sword and compel, without being appointed prophets of God, they end up bringing calamity on themselves.

God did it regarding the Sabbaths too. Every 7th year was the year of rest. Nobody was to plant crops. Whatever grew in the field was to grow of its own. It could be taken to eat, but there would be no formal harvest. And of course the poor were always authorized, by God, to walk through the fields and eat of them. Crops and land were not the ABSOLUTE property of their owners - they were the conditional property only. The poor had a first right to EAT and cross, and what is more, if in the harvest something was dropped, the owners had no right to pick it back up: God reserved that for the poor. NOR did the owners have the right to go BACK and harvest the later crops. They had the right to plant and harvest ONE TIME in their fields. All the rest of the food produced there was NOT there. It belonged to the poor.

In California once I was driving a back road past an immense grapefruit grove. It stretched on for miles and miles and miles. The trees were laden with fruit, and there were ripe fruits on the ground under the trees everywhere, stretching back as far as the eye could see into that forest of fruit trees. It smelled wonderful and was very appetizing. I wanted some, because I was hungry. I drove up and down that roadside for several miles, looking for a roadside vendor, a farmer's stand, somewhere to get one of those grapefruit. There was none. What there was, were large signs tacked up on posts every few hundred feet, with huge letters: "NO TRESSPASSING" and a stern warning not to take any fruit.

This was an American commercial citrus farmer protecting his property. As far as he, and American law, are concerned, every single one of those grapefruit, including the tens of thousands falling off the tree onto the ground, are his, and his alone. For anyone to enter is trespassing, and for anyone to take as little as a single grapefruit lying on the ground, destined to rot, is, according to this farmer and American law, stealing.

Before God, American law is wrong and that farmer is wrong. Those fallen fruits do not belong to him. The whole crop and the land itself all belong to God. The farmer did not make the tree grow nor bud, flower and fruit. God did. God permits the farmer to make a good living off the usufruct of His land and his trees, and that is well. But God authorized the sojourner, the passerby, the poor, to walk through those lands - the farmer had no right to keep them out - and, if hungry, to eat fallen fruit. However, God forbade the passerby from GATHERING fruit in a basket and carrying it away. THAT is stealing. Had I gotten out of the car and taken and eaten a fallen fruit, I would have been entirely within my rights, and had the farmer or the police interfered with me, they would have been spitting in the face of God.

When Jesus and the Apostles walked through the field on the Sabbath, and some of the hungry Apostles took some grain and chewed on it, they were not stealing. God authorized that. They were not challenged for stealing either, merely for Sabbath-breaking, for "harvesting" on the Sabbath. But eating is not harvesting. The harvest is an economic gathering in. Picking something and eating it because you're hungry is a God-given right.

Notice all of the human laws that have been added to God's law to say "No, you can't do that". Those laws are all evil and wrong. That's what happens when you add to God's law. You're wrong, and you do evil. But men don't even SEE that. And THAT is why, in Israel, God so explicitly left out any Legislature at all, and only sent an Executive in time of crisis.

And it meant that the Israelites had to trust God - to have faith and WAIT on God. He who does not trust God enough to wait on him is a man of little faith.

During the Exodus, God provided the manna. And he forbade them to gather manna on the 7th day, the rest day. No, they were to gather a double portion on the sixth day, and that would carry them through. Also, he forbade them from gathering extra on any day, from putting some away for tomorrow, "Just in case". Whenever the Israelites gathered extra, it turned to worms and rotted, and God was displeased. But that did not happen on the sixth day. The extra gathered then held over. God's whole message: you depend on me for your food. I will give you enough food to eat always. You must trust (have faith in) me. You not to set aside anything extra. I know what you need. And you are not to gather on the 7th day. You are to rest.

God made the same rule later with the Sabbatical Year - Israel was to TRUST that in the 6 other years God would provide enough to tide over the 7th year, along with that which grows of its own in the fields.

The real test came in the Jubilee, the 50th year. For the 49th year, being a multiple of 7, was a Sabbatical year, but the 50th year was ALSO a Sabbath year. Which meant that the Israelites did not have new grain and had to live off of their stores for two and a half ears: the 49th year, and the 50th year, and the 51st year too, until the time of the harvest that year.

They had to TRUST GOD that he would provide the excess in the preceding years, and enough wild growth in the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, to tide them through. That was the faith required, and it was the same faith required regarding the executive.

As to the third branch of government, the Judicial, this was very much the intermediary of which you speak. This was the permanent, heavy, government of Israel. There were two levels of this. First, there were the Levites. They were spread throughout the tribes. It was to them that the people were to bring the first fruits, and the tithes. This was in addition to what was brought to Jerusalem and the priests for the three festivals. The first fruits and tithes served two purposes: first, they fed the Levites themselves, who were a tribe granted no land other than the fields right around the Levitical cities. And then the bulk of the tithe (which was in the form of agricultural produce) was distributed by the Levites to the poor, the cripple, the infirm, the orphan - whoever needed it. So, God didn't give his state a Legislature or an Executive, but he DID give them a religious welfare agency. The Levites served as judges also.

The other role of Levites, and others so appointed by them, was to be judges. There was a judge for every ten men, and for fifties and hundreds and thousands. And at the apex of it all was the High Priest, at the altar of the Tabernacle, and HE had in his possession the Urim and Thummim, oracles by which God could be consulted directly for an answer in a doubtful case.

Part of the Torah is a whole set of ways that God directed judges to try and decide cases. For example, in a capital case, nobody could be put to death without the testimony of two or three witnesses. Also, witnesses had no choice but to testify - if they knew something, they had to say it. Each witness faced the same penalty as the accused for lying, be it by telling an untruth or by concealing an exonerative truth.

This, in a murder or adultery case, the witnesses who perjured, and also those who knew the truth but refused to speak, were themselves to be put to death.

God established a parallelism in his law, and established the canons of judgment to reflect that.

All told, over 13% of the population of Israel was part of the judiciary, and in addition there was the Levitical welfare apparatus (tithes were for charity, but they were not at all optional).

131 of every 1000 were judges: 100 judges of 10s, 20 judges of 50s, 10 judges of hundreds, 1 judge of thousands, and above him, the High Priest (with the Urim and Thummim). And besides this (without considerable overlap), the Levites were on of the 12 Tribes of Israel, and they judged, and they also were the keepers of the treasury of the land, which was in the form of tithes, which were the only taxes, and their ENTIRE purpose was to feed the Levites and provide poverty relief.

So yes, Israel was a theocracy in the truest sense of the word: it was ruled directly by God, as lawgiver. God had no intermediary in the giving of law. Moses was his scribe. The High Priests and Levites were his judges and administrator. Indeed, the word we like to translate as "priest" is a functional title that means, in essence, administrator.

We have a tradition of "separation of Church and state". But Israel had no separation. There was no Church at all. The people were the people of God, and the administrators of God collected the taxes, distributed them as welfare, and served as judges to enforce God's law as given. There was no legislature sitting debating new laws, because there was no ability to make or change God's laws at all. There was no executive or police force. In time of danger, God made a prophet and the men formed the army and followed him.

No other government has ever been a true theocracy, or CAN be, because there is only one God, and the only place he ever ruled directly was ancient Israel, and he destroyed it. So, a place like Iran we might call a "theocracy", because it's ruled by a religious organization, but it isn't, because it's not God who is ruling directly. We should call Iran a "mullahocracy" or some similar term.

In any case, I don't advocate that we attempt to reconstitute the government of ancient Israel. That would be useless - because God would not really be ruling us that way - and impious - as if we could bind God to dance to our forms.

What I DO urge is in keeping with what Jesus meant when he said that not a penstroke nor a dot would pass away from God's Law until the end of the world.

But how can that be? Didn't Jesus make all foods clean, and forbid divorce, and didn't God destroy the temple and end the rites? And anyway, didn't we just say that the law God gave to Israel did not promise eternal life, or really say anything about the afterlife at all, and only promised a farm in Israel?

Yes, all of that is true. It oftentimes seems that Christians are entirely too anxious to "get out from under" the Law without ever taking time to comprehend what the law said, and what it's POINT really was.

You know it instantly: any Christian who thinks that the Law was about Salvation of the soul, passing final judgement and entering Heaven after death simply has not read the Old Testament. Perhaps he has skimmed through it, looking for points of reference to what he believes, but that's all the Old Testament serves for to Christians who are so in the dark as that: it's a mine for "gotcha" quotes to prove some point.

In fact, though, what the Old Testament is, is a record of Creation, and then God's selection of a particular family and the people associated with that family over time, to establish a moral path for man through teaching by example and repetition. Covenantal Israel was the archetype of the state, governed according to the wisdom of God and under the laws of God, completely undiluted (in concept) by the opinions of man. All of the written law of Israel is God's opinion about everything, every single thing, that is - or ever will be, until the end of the world - of importance to the happiness and right living of mankind. God pulled a bunch of slaves, most of them unrelated, out of the strongest ancient Kingdom. He took the time to smash flat each and every major deity in that Kingdom's pagan pantheon, by making miracles that specifically assumed command of the natural element that the Egyptian god controlled, and then using that element to torment the Egyptians, thereby demonstrating God's mastery not just over the Egytpians and Pharaoh, but over each of their named gods in his her her own element. The pantheon of gods in whom the Egyptians believed in intensely enough to spend all of that time and energy building those colossal pyramids, were all defied to their face by the Lord God of Hosts, El Elyon, the Most High God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.

Pharaoh was actually persuaded pretty early to let the Israelites go, and would have several times. It was God Himself who kept sending his spirit to harden Pharaoh's heart, so that Pharaoh would not let them go, thus paving the way for God to directly smash down before all of Egypt another Egyptian god.

Consider the plague of frogs. Frogs? Darkness, blood, gnats, scalls - these things are all painful or scary, real punishment of humans in a way that makes them fear. But FROGS? They don't bite. They're not poisonous (at least not in Egypt). All they did in the plague was just come out of the rivers and marshes annoying everybody, and then die and stink. That's annoying, but it's not even the first plague. Plagues before that inflicted pain and perhaps death and destruction - and yet suddenly God "goes soft" and send FROGS? Frogs. Why? The answer is not found by looking at the effects on humans. God knew that Pharaoh would let the Israelites go as soon as God stopped hardening Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh himself relented early on. God kept intervening to change Pharaoh's mind and make him more obdurate. Why? So that God could make more plagues, like the frogs. Part of this was to be a symbol for all time, but the true symbology is mostly lost on us because we look at the people and God, and we don't see the rival spirits, the gods of Egypt. Egypt was THE great kingdom, the only one at the time, and it had a pantheon of powerful deities, deities who were real - they performed miracles also. The Egyptian wise men were not illusionists. Their gods turned their sticks into snakes. But the stick from El Elyon ate up the other snakes. Each of God's plagues of Egypt seized the element of an Egyptian god and ruled it to the disgrace of that lesser god. The river goddess was a frog goddess. The Greeks called her "Plataea". But the Most High God brought forth the frogs, and had them die in heaps: demonstrating to all of Egypt that the river goddess was powerful, even in her own element, against El Elyon, the most high God.

Jesus did no less when he spoke with demons and cast them out, into pigs, or into the air, etc. Other spirits are real, and the gods of the ancients were often these spirits that accepted worship and divine service in exchange for favors. But when the Father, the Creator, the Most High God, steps onto the stage, the lesser spirits who have accepted worship tremble. In Egypt, he hurled one lesser god after another into the dirt and muck. Pharaoh, the ruler, was said to be descended of the sons of Ra, the god of the sun. And maybe he was. Recall that certain of the angels did descend both before and after the Flood and have offspring by human females: the Nephilim. The Great House of Egypt ("Paroh" in Hebrew means "Great House" - the Greek word "Pharaoh" is a transliteration of this; it doesn't mean "king") got its position somehow, and by its own legends this was because the people believed that the Great House, Paroh, were descended from the sun God. Maybe at some point they were Nephilim. And perhaps the way that the Egyptian astronomers determined the solar cycle to predict eclipses was through the aid of some of these spirits, these lesser gods. Who can say?

What we can say is that when God imposed the darkness on Egypt, the penultimate plague, he was striking directly at the sun, at Ra, at the highest of the Egyptian deities, and demonstrating to all of Egypt that God Most High, El Elyon, was higher than the Sun, higher than Ra, that Ra could not resist or control him.

The FINAL plague, the Passover, had a purpose also. In Egypt, the first born of every Egyptian house was consecrated to the service of the gods. The first born were the priests and priestesses of Egypt. By striking down the first born, specifically, El Elyon, God most high, stripped Egypt of its entire religious structure - all of its priests and priestesses - in one night. A modern equivalent would be that God comes and kills in one night every priest, minister, brother, nun, reverend and deacon in the world, completely annihilating the entire Christian clergy in one night, leaving none alive. What happens then? All that is left are lay people, and what do they know about deeper theology? So, God mastered the Egyptian gods, then he killed their whole clergy, and then he let Pharaoh relent and let the Hebrews go.

All of this was intended to demonstrate a lot of things to everybody, for all time: that the Most High God is above their gods, EVEN THOUGH their gods can indeed perform miracles - they are subordinate. That God is the master of everything. Also, that God can choose a no-people - the slaves of Egypt were not all, or even mostly, descendants of Jacob, they were a polyglot of people from everywhere - and he can make them into a people by his own will. Also, that God can crush the mightiest human state in one night by directly reaching in and killing its entire ruling class: the Egyptian priesthood was the ruling class (they were not celibate).

More subtly, Pharaoh actually DID get the message from God early on, and was ready to let the Hebrews go several times. It was God who hardened his heart in order to continue to make the example.

By contrast, the Hebrews who came out of Egypt saw all of these miracles and more - "faith" was not a question of BELIEF to them, it was a matter of TRUSTING God, that we would see them through. He did them nothing but good, and yet THEY kept THEMSELVES hardening their hearts and stiffening their necks against him. He kept telling them not to, but they kept doing it, to their own destruction.

There is a lesson in that, but we should note that the Exodus story shows TWO kinds of people - the kind that is prone to listen to God (Pharaoh, and his magicians who told him "This was the finger of God" when they saw it, and who told him "Egypt is being destroyed!"); God had to harden Pharaoh's heart several times. Left to his own free will, Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go after the first couple of plagues. And then there's the kind that, even in then face of miracle and blessing, are NOT willing to listen to God, or to trust God, who keep on rebelling. God intentionally CHOSE a people of the second type, indeed a no-people whom he made a people, and knowing from the beginning that they would fail, nevertheless established his exemplary state among THEM. Had he done it among the Egyptians, had he simply revealed himself as above Ra and cast out the Egyprian gods, HE would have been the God of Egypt, and you can bet that the Egyptians would have been very faithful in executing his laws too, not rebellious the way the Hebrews were. He picked a no people, a rabble of slaves, and made them a people, wreaking a miracle of statecraft out of the most rejected, downtrodden, ignorant, poor, lowly, stubborn and stupid people.

Jesus also builds the Kingdom starting with individuals, and it is much easier for people who are at the bottom to see and follow God than for people who are rich and comfortable.

Also, God did not hate the Egyptians, though the Hebrews might have been inclined to. Two of the laws in Torah, from the mouth of God, are 'You shall not oppress a foreigner, for you were once strangers in a strange land.' And 'You shall not oppress an Egyptian, for he gave you refuge in his land.'

Note that while Americans are swift to dismiss worrying about the Indians because that was "long ago" and we don't want to think about it, God was still crediting the Egyptians saving the family of Jacob and Joseph and letting them settle there and treating them well, over four hundred years later.

And remember, it was once again into Egypt that the Holy Family fled Herod, who sought to kill the baby Jesus. It was safe in Egypt that Jesus passed the first few years of his life.

Egypt is not really the problem. The Egyptians were led astray by demons, and followed them. But Pharaoh was not stupid, and he was not unrelenting. God had to keep hardening his heart in order to perform all of the signs, throw down all of the gods, and teach all of these lessons I have been writing about for all ages.

But those lessons are not taught if people do not read them. If they just look at what God said and did and put it in the simple framework of "Jews good/Egyptians bad" then they fail to see what God was teaching. This happens with the whole Torah. Jesus upheld the law, but what does that MEAN? He didn't uphold the food law - but God said that was to keep the Israelites healthy in Israel.

It was not a spiritual issue. Remember, God gave Israel a defined land, and no mandate to go and take more anywhere else. God knows all, including biology. If you are sending a primitive people with no knowledge of germ theory into a hot land of deserts, swamps and stagnant rivers and seas, and you want them to be healthy, but you can only use their language, not modern language. What do you do? You give them a list of foods that are clean for them and unclean. How can you explain why. Why are fish with fins and scales "clean", but bottom-feeding catfish unclean? Why are birds that eat seeds clean, but birds that eat blood and carrion unclean? Why are the only clean mammals cud-chewing with cleft feet? (They don't eat blood, and therefore do not have blood-borne parasites).

Had the Promised Land been in Norway, would got have forbidden eating oysters and crabs, which are in abundance in those cold clean waters? They are also abundant in the flat, hot, fetid, stagnant sewage- laden mud flats of Egypt and Israel. but they are certainly not good for you. God knew what he was doing.

The Israelites didn't understand why they had to tear down a house that had recurring "leprosy", even after scrubbed and the infected part was pulled out. We know: the house has toxic mold growing within the walls, and local abatement will not get rid of it. God knew: he said 'tear it down and discard the unclean ruins outside of the town'. COULD anybody in 1500 BC have known about toxic mold, what it was and how it worked? Could that even be conveyed in ancient Hebrew? Or blood-born parasites? Or toxic amoebae? God knew, and he knew they wouldn't understand. He wanted them healthy in his kingdom, and so he told them what to do, and told them they must do it. They just had to trust him and do it, not knowing why. We can see why. But for the first 3250 years of the Torah, nobody could understand why. Was it just some strange ritual? It was strange, yes. It was a ritual, yes. But it always had a purpose. God always knew what he was doing, and he always said to just DO IT - DO what he said, follow the laws, TRUST ME that this is best - and don't take anything out of the law.

And so it goes on through the whole law. God wanted the state he set up to be perfect, so he gave it a perfect set of laws. We cannot reproduce that state in its entirety: God has never promised us prophets or farms, or given us Urim and Thummim by which to consult him directly. But the wisdom and purpose of God's laws remain. So when we look into them and we see a detailed economic order, if we disregard it thinking "Well, thank God we don't have to follow THAT, because we're Christians!" We are being bone stupid.

We're looking at God's wisdom, designed for the ages, designed by perfect intelligence to address all of the myriad overlapping problems, and we've decided that God is just not good enough for us - we know better - so we do what we want, and then everything turns into calamity, just as God warned the Israelites.

And then we have a choice: we can RELENT and listen to God, like Pharaoh would have - God had to harden his heart to prevent that so he could make the lesson, but he's not going to harden OUR hearts. Or we can harden our hearts and stiffen our necks, like rebellious Hebrews, and continue to do it our way, and continue to fail catastrophically.

Take a good look at how hard people abuse me here on this site for simply conveying God's law of money as written. And look how offended people get when I tell them truly that they are rejecting God and his revealed, detailed law - the only way that will ever WORK - in order to serve money.

THEY DON'T CARE. Think of those Israelites, standing in the desert, seeing the pillar of fire, having walked through the ocean, and STILL grousing that God won't provide them water, or meat, or whatever, still refusing to obey him.

What did that avail them in the end.

If we continue this discourse, I'm going to focus on Jesus, just Jesus. It is Jesus who says that the Law is fully the law until the planet is destroyed, so all of those economic provisions of God's wisdom are STILL God's wisdom and still true.

But if a Christian wants to assert his "free will" to blow off God and do it a different way, as we have, then we need to be warned of our death by Jesus, who has his own direct things to say about economics.

On another thread, I intended to move forward from Genesis to Revelation, in order, discussing what God says about economics. The audience I am targeting, really, are the stiff-necked, hard-hearted "Christians" who have deluded themselves into believing that if it has to do with MONEY, then God's law is all voluntary.

Jesus never said a thing about homosexual sodomy. Never did. To see the death penalty for that, you have to go back to the Torah. That's where that law is. That's the only place it is. Paul refers to it. He doesn't make a new law. Why is it that Christians will say that God hates homosexual sodomy, based on the Torah, but then are incapable of HEARING what God has to say about interest, debt forgiveness, poverty relief?

It is because those "Christians' are stiff necked hard-hearted people who serve money. That's why. They need to open their eyes and stop it.

Likewise, we've seen defenses of slavery - SLAVERY! - in the South. No Christian can defend slavery. But they have tried to. Hard-hearted, stiff necked, blind fools.

And where do these beliefs that we can blow off God and just follow our own ideas come from? Satan. They come from Satan.

If we continue this discussion, I'm going to let Jesus have the last word. On and on Jesus goes about the poor, about the duty to help them. And the Apostles actually follow the example too. In fact, two early Christians are struck dead by God right at the feet of Peter over a manner of insincere donations.

But what do I hear Christians say? That none of this MATTERS, that all that matters is whether or not you believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus himself totally rejected that very argument.

"WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO YOU TO SAY THAT YOU FOLLOW ME IF YOU DON'T KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS?" - Jesus of Nazareth

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-02   13:10:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Vicomte13 (#92)

If we continue this discussion, I'm going to let Jesus have the last word.

Always a good plan.

As I pointed out earlier, you have this at one end of the spectrum:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

~John 3:16-18 NIV

But then we have the book of James, and this - James 2:14-26

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

On the surface it appears to be a contradiction. How do I - as a Christian - reconcile this?

By focusing on the word "believes" in the John passage. To me, believing is not just simply saying the words "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Yes, it starts there, but belief has to have shoe leather attached to it. That's where the James passage comes in.

A Christian, guided by The Holy Spirit (2nd Person of the Trinity), will respond to His promptings when so guided to help the poor or less fortunate. To do otherwise is to deny one's faith. His or her belief is not genuine.

This is going to have to serve as my final comment per this theological discussion - at least for now.

I'm not as prolific a writer as you, and I simply cannot summarize my faith any clearer than that.

I'd like to get back to a point you made in an earlier post, however.

I do not favor an "all powerful government".

Sweden doesn't have an all-powerful government. Neither does Denmark. Or Finland.

First off, the USA is much larger - population wise - than the countries you cited. A system designed to work there will not necessarily work here.

Second, those countries do not have a massive illegal immigration problem. Their politicians to my knowledge are not saying to the rest of the world "come here, jump our fences, and we will provide you free health care".

Finally, Norway does not play world policeman like the USA; Denmark does not have military bases in dozens of places. Sweden is not going around the world fighting in un-declared wars. Taking on those cradle-to-grave Socialistic programs WITHOUT a corresponding reduction in our other expenditures is not only foolish, it is suicidal. And it is dishonest.

You cited these countries apparently because of their Protestant roots. That's fine, but it's irrelevant to today. As irrelevant as saying the USA is governed by a Constitution when in fact and in practice it is not.

So those differences will - in my opinion - doom the USA's foray into Socialism to failure.

One final observation - I don't intend it to be a criticism but it may come off that way.

Frankly, I get weary of those who constantly point to other countries and say "we need to be more like THEM"

Fact is - we are NOT them.

People used to come here FROM those countries to WORK here - to better themselves and their families. Ask yourself - why did they do that? They were escaping in some cases those very Socialistic utopias that some (you?) seem to want us to become.

I'm not a rah rah flag waving, USA love it or leave it type of guy. Certainly, I know and am honest about our faults and shortcomings as a nation.

By the same token, however, there are some things RIGHT about the country.

Perhaps it would be cool to remind ourselves of that once in a while.

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-08-02   15:19:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Rufus T Firefly (#93)

Frankly, I get weary of those who constantly point to other countries and say "we need to be more like THEM"

I don't. The only thing I do say is that we ought to emulate the French health insurance system, because that is the closest to ours, in terms of being insurance (as opposed to the direct provision of care), and because the doctors are independent, and because France has a very high quality medical treatment standard, on a par with ours.

They have single payer. Essentially, the French have US Medicare, but it covers everybody.

THAT is what we SHOULD do. Be done with Medicaid, and with private insurers and pools and that nonsense. Extend Medicare to cover everybody, just as it covers the over-65s now. Increase taxes to pay for it, and have done with it.

What I say is that we should put the limits in our laws that are in the laws of God. Unpayable debts need to be dischargeable. We've done the opposite.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-02   18:12:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Vicomte13 (#95)

The only thing I do say is that we ought to emulate the French health insurance system, because that is the closest to ours, in terms of being insurance (as opposed to the direct provision of care),

You didn't respond to my point re: Denmark, Norway, Sweden being much smaller countries than the US and not having the world policeman obligations that the US has. Although France is larger (65 million), it is nowhere near the population of the 300 plus million in the US. Plus France does not have the US illegal immigration problem. (They import Muslims, but AFAIK they are doing so legally).

So once again: How do you take a already financially underwater Medicare system and ADD clients to it - WITHOUT a corresponding reduction in other US expenditures. (Note: I'm not arguing whether we should or shouldn't reduce the US footprint around the world. I'm just saying it's not going to happen.

and because the doctors are independent,

Ahh, doctors. And nurses, PA's, etc. Professionals that are required to provide that "free" healthcare that everyone seems to want. Have you been to a waiting room recently? Wait long? And that's with our current system.

My wife is in the medical field - will probably be retiring next year. People are GETTING OUT of the field. Without anything else changing, wait times are only going to get worse. What's going to happen when the system is flooded with NEW clients?

It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a doctor (Med school expenses, etc.) Who is going to pay that? If you say "private", will a doctor come out of school that deep in debt and be willing to work for government wages? Will he/she be willing to be a gov't slave (after all, if it's my "right" to have free healthcare, someone has to be forced to provide my "right.") Right?

If you say public funding, that's just going to add to an already unfathomable debt.

and because France has a very high quality medical treatment standard, on a par with ours.

I don't know anything about the French standard, so all I'll say is the US is probably near or at the top in the world (as to medical breakthroughs, technology, R&D, etc.) I can personally attest to that, having had a quadruple bypass 10 years ago and still being here to tell about it.

They have single payer. Essentially, the French have US Medicare, but it covers everybody.

THAT is what we SHOULD do. Be done with Medicaid, and with private insurers and pools and that nonsense. Extend Medicare to cover everybody, just as it covers the over-65s now. Increase taxes to pay for it, and have done with it.

Again all that sounds very nice - but refer to the counter-points I made earlier. As much as Socialists and Statists wish it were otherwise, there is still this thing called "supply and demand". They cannot pass a law to repeal it.

Yes, the gov't can provide "free" healthcare to everyone - just as it could provide free Cadillacs to everyone. But what good is it if I go down to the Cadillac store, find a line ten miles long (everyone wants their free Cadillac, doncha know), and am told I have to wait 10 years for mine? I want it NOW!

That's a silly example - here's a better one. In April of 2005, I was experiencing shortness of breath. No pains or anything, just that. That was on a Friday. On Monday, I had an angiogram; on Tuesday I had open heart surgery.

Argue all day long about the pros and cons of Zero Care, single payer, yada yada yada. All I can say is - if we had one of those systems in place then instead of the system that WAS in place, I probably wouldn't be here.

What I say is that we should put the limits in our laws that are in the laws of God. Unpayable debts need to be dischargeable. We've done the opposite.

We've discussed Theocracies ad infinitum. The only thing our corrupt (and yes, evil) current government is going to do about "the laws of God" is laugh at them.

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-08-03   8:54:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Rufus T Firefly (#98)

You didn't respond to my point re: Denmark, Norway, Sweden being much smaller countries than the US and not having the world policeman obligations that the US has.

I did, but I did so in my own way. Now I will respond directly and clearly, so that it isn't left vague.

The Nordic countries physically comprise vast territory, much of it quite difficult. They have a smaller population than the US as a whole, but each of the Nordic countries has the same population as major US states. There Scandinavian system is scalable.

The second part of what you said is indeed a key difference, but I need to correct your language.

The US does not have world policeman obligations. We are not obligated to be the world's policeman. We have arrogated that role unto ourselves, we do it badly, at enormous expense to ourselves, and the money we waste on those inappropriate activities does indeed go missing where we need it to invest in our own people.

Empire has never worked well in the long run for any country. You get to be "great" - whatever that means - but "great" doesn't matter. And the price of the "greatness" is to hollow out and ultimately be worse off for it. England ended up impoverished by her empire. Spain fell from number one nation to a 300-year also-ran because she ate up her seed corn trying to maintain an empire. The USSR imploded because of an obsession for spending prodigious sums on a vast, unusable military. And the US has spent trillions to establish and try to maintain an empire that is a pure drain on American lives, limbs and resources.

We have no "world policeman obligation". The obligation does not exist. We have operated under the fantasy that it does, and that we "must", but it doesn't, and we cannot afford it.

Sooner or later, we will give up the empire. If we were intelligent, we would give it up willingly, and rather quickly. The sooner we stanch the bleeding, the quicker our finances will improve. But if we're stubborn and persuade ourselves that we "must" maintain our imperial role, then we will continue to do as we've done since 1946: go into debt to maintain an oversized military deployed all over the world, and then lose wars because we cannot politically bring our forces to bear. The string of defeats since World War II is stunning - China in 1949, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, and now Afghanistan and Iraq.

I do not speak of defeat as a boardgamer might, looking at some rulebook - I speak in real terms: when you are the sole nuclear power and you lose most of an army and get driven halfway out of a country (Korea), you have been defeated. When you invade a country, overthrow its government, lose control of the political situation, and end up with a new government that is aligned with your worst enemy in the region, and that cannot control its own borders against the worst sorts of threats (I speak of Iraq), you have been defeated. When you invade and sit, at enormous expense, and know you have to be there forever because as soon as you leave the place will revert to the same people you drove out (Afghanistan), you have opened a permanent bleeding abscess on your body politic, out of which your money will drain forever, until you admit defeat and withdraw. And the more stubborn you are about refusing to admit defeat, the worse damage you inflict on yourself.

So right here, in this military empire, this role as world policeman, we have identified THE key area where the money is, was, and has been, to fund the social safety net.

You ask where we would get the money to do what we ought to do, and there is your answer: we will fund a proper social safety net by ending the US world empire, bringing home the armed forces, deeply cutting the now unnecessary excess forces (and placing the remainder on the Mexican Border to stop the illegal flow of aliens and drugs), and using all of that cost savings to quickly balance the budget.

With a balanced budget, and a tax code that is properly structured, the money that formerly went to the twin drains of empire and debt interest will be freed to more rapidly retire debt, and then ultimately to improve the social safety net.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-03   10:02:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Vicomte13 (#99)

but I need to correct your language.

When I wrote obligations I should have put it in quotes (" ").

I actually agree with what you wrote.

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-08-03   10:22:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 102.

        There are no replies to Comment # 102.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 102.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com