Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Rebuilding a Conservative Movement I
Source:
Sultan Knish blog
URL Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/201 ... s+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%
Published: Sep 25, 2015
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Post Date: 2015-09-27 19:03:36 by Rufus T Firefly
Keywords: None
Views: 50456
Comments: 199
The trouble with the donor class, by and large, is that it is resistant to change because it doesn't want to change. The Democratic and Republican donor classes donate for their business interests, but the Democratic donor class has a radical edge. Groups like the Democracy Alliance want a fundamental transformation of the country. And they understand how they can make money off that. There are too many Republican single issue donors who are fairly liberal on everything outside that issue. And there are too many big business interests and financial folks who live in major cities and only differ from liberals in their economic policy. The trouble with fiscally conservative and socially liberal is that the left is not a buffet. You don't get to pick a combo identity. Fiscally liberal follows socially liberal as day follows night. All those single people, their babies need assorted government benefits. No amount of lectures on "liberty" will change that. Austrian economics is never going to displace food stamps for the socially insecure. A lot of the Republican donor class would like to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the fun of a liberal society without having to pay the bill. It wants cheap Third World labor without wanting to cover their health care, the school taxes and all the other social welfare goodies. But it doesn't work that way. There's no free ride. Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state. And then there are housing projects in the township, everyone is plugged into the same statewide school tax scheme and the left runs everything and taxes everything. The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer. Or just live with it while funding groups that promote "Liberty", the way the Koch Brothers do, but the bill always comes due. You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy. And you can't stop those political trends without addressing the social failures that cause them. A socially liberal society will become politically and economically liberal. Importing Third World labor also imports Third World politics, which veer between Marxism and Fascism all the way to the Islamic Jihad. Everything is connected. You can't choose one without the other. We're not going to have some libertarian utopia in which everyone gets high and lives in communes, but doesn't bother with regulations and taxes. The closest thing you can find to that is Africa. Nor are we going to be able to import tens of millions of people from countries where working class politics is Marxist without mainstreaming Marxism as a political solution in major cities across America. People are not divisible that way. Human society is not a machine you can break down. The left has fundamentally changed America. Much of the donor class hesitates to recognize this or prefers to believe that it can isolate the bad changes from the good changes. It doesn't work that way. Getting the kind of fiscal conservatism that a lot of the donor class wants requires making fundamental changes to the country. You can't just tinker with economic regulations in a country where schoolchildren are taught to demand taxes on plastic bags to save the planet or where a sizable portion of the population is dependent on the government. Those tactics can rack up ALEC victories while losing the war. Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. Those are not compatible with social liberalism or casual Marxism. Individually, yes. It's possible to make money while being a leftist. But spread across a large population with different classes and races, those individual quirks will not be replicated. And you can't create that population with slogans. You have to be able to shape national values, not just economic policy. That's the hard truth. There are no single issue solutions. At best there are single issue stopgaps. But the left is not a single issue organization. It has narrowed down most of its disagreements and combined its deck of agendas. Its coalition supports a large range of programs from across the deck. It's still possible to be a pro-abortion Republican, but the political representation of pro-life Democrats is disappearing. You can be a Republican who supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but a Democrat who says anything too critical about Islam has a limited future in his party at any national level. The same is true across the spectrum. Kim Davis is a Democrat. How much of a future do Democrats opposed to gay marriage have? Meanwhile it's possible to be a pro-gay marriage Republican. The Republican "big tent" is more a symptom of ideological disarray, as we've seen in this primary season, by a party that doesn't really know what it believes, than of tolerance. But the left has taken over the Democratic Party and made its agendas into the only acceptable ones. There are still some national Democrats hedging weakly on gun control and environmentalism, but they're going to be purged. Their party will abandon them and Republicans will squeeze them out. A lot of the donor class is really seeking an accommodation with the left. The election was warped when the Koch brothers decided to find common ground with the ACLU on freeing drug dealers. They dragged some good candidates in with them and down with them destroying their credibility on key issues. You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all. The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing. It's easily observable just in Obama's two terms. The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything. You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all. Single issues can be important and it's good for people to pick one or two things to focus on, but that has to come with the understanding that there can be no accommodation with it in any other area. An organization fighting gun control is doing important work, but its backers should never fall under the illusion that the 2nd amendment can be maintained if the left wins on all the other fronts. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". The quote is true today in all its implications as it was then. We must have a conservative movement that is united in a common front or we will be dragged down one by one. There will be no conservative issue islands left to stand on if the red tide comes in. The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island. Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward. To do that, we have to accept that fundamental change is necessary. Right now we're fighting a losing battle. We're trying to keep the tide out, when we must become the tide. Poster Comment: Money quote: You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama. The left has to be fought totally or not at all.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-138) not displayed.
.
.
.
#139. To: TooConservative (#137)
Solar calendar? Wow. Wonder how that measured up with the Temple dudes. No wonder the books of Enoch got a bad rap...solar. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Well, now, this is interesting, because it gets to the marrow of what different people see in Scripture. I find some of the advice in Proverbs to be profound, and some of it to be glib. Ecclesiastes, by contrast, I find to be the deepest work of the Bible, because it is completely human in its outlook - there are no commandments there - a mind moving through all of the different streets and alleyways, and examining every human diversion and philosophy, and discovering that it all, all of it, is in vain and doomed to decay. All that's left at the end is God. Every material angle and every human artifice is dust in the wind. And all that's left is God. Other books have striving and failing, commandment and consequence, but there is no THREAT in Ecclesiastes, no "do this or else". There is, rather, a man who has the real choices that real men face: we are astonishingly free. And because he is rich and powerful, he has ALL of the choices that any man of his era could make. We can dream of making laws, but he did make them. We can dream of having whatever sensuous pleasure we would like, but he had the money and power to do them. We can dream of having the freedom to be abstemious, but he had the freedom to do it. And every path of endeavor, whatever achieved, ultimately ended in dust and ashes. Every single solitary thing that every man does is utterly worthless. It is perishable, like him. And it, like him, DOES perish, and disappears, leaving a memory, for awhile. And then even that fades. The most prominent of all men leave a name that only the educated know, and maybe a sentence. And nothing more. Qoholeth is right: it is all vanity. Utter vanity. We build nothing, and if we think we do, we are deceived. By doing all, and trying all, Qoholeth came to realize that everything is vanity. The parallel figure in history was Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha. They each came to a profound spiritual conclusion, albeit a different one, based on their pre-programmed faith. The Buddha sought the final end of unprofitable recycling through the ages by finding Nirvana - the nonexistence of the soul, finally escaping the circles of the world through nonexistence. Qoholeth realized that there is nothing worth holding onto as a perishable man in a perishable and perishing world. Only God. You find it glum and depressing. But I find it the most enlightening and true revealed by human reason in all of Scripture. Now, as to the "not a doctrinal text" comment. What is a "doctrinal text", and who says? I will tell you truthfully: the only person who can decide which text is doctrinal and which is not, is you yourself. God never gave any man, or collection of men, the power or indeed the ABILITY to decide that, for exactly the reason that precedes this part of this message. The texts are collected and preserved, and what is most important varies from mind to mind. And nobody is appointed either cop or judge to determine what is and is not "doctrinal" for anybody else. Men think they have that power, and they divide the Church by trying to assert it. They don't. And they should stop trying. We each come at God differently, through the light God gives us - if it finally comes down to a test of whose viewpoint is authoritative, I already know the answer to that: MINE. And whoever says differently is self-evidently wrong, and would be better to stop digging himself in deeper. And so it is with every mind. Jesus did not grant anybody the power to dominate anybody else's relationship to him and to the Father. We can encourage each other, and enlighten each other, and remind each other of dangers and traps, but when we seek to compel each other under pain of this or that, then by doing so we are wrong by definition. Enoch and the Didache are canon, because the Ethiopian Orthodox say they are. The Ethiopian Orthodox have the same authority as the Catholics and the Greeks in terms of age: they date from the Apostles. They have more authority than the Greeks because they resisted Islam while 90% of the East fell to Islam. They have more authority than the Catholics because the Catholics burnt people alive, including a messenger sent from God, and the Ethiopian Orthodox didn't. You know them by their fruit, and the Ethiopian Orthodox have 2000 years of sweet fruit, without mass apostasy, and without mass murder. Therefore the superiority of their wisdom is proven by the superiorty of their works and acts over the long haul. Which means that their judgments regarding what is Scripture are also better. Obviously. You know them by their fruit. Best fruit, best canon. Period. To me, that really is the FINAL answer, and everything else is just desperate, pathetic pleading of more morally compromised and more defeated variants. This doesn't mean that every tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox is the best. It DOES mean that God has favored them exceptionally, as evidenced by their superior persistence, the centuries of good fruit, and the relative absence of rotten fruit. So, you can doubt the canonicity of the Didache if you wish, but I don't. To be clear, it matters, because Paul said "All Scripture is God breathed...", so saying that something is Scripture matters. And what the Ethiopians say is Scripture, is Scripture, because their fruit over 2000 years has been the less rotten, their faith the more persistent, and their challenges (surrounded by raging Islam) the most continuous and dire, yet lightly borne. Maybe that's why God gave them the Ark of the Covenant for safekeeping, and not the Greeks or the Romans.
Well I guess that settles it:) Move the Vatican to Ethiopia now! "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Patton had to have his fuel cut off to keep him from taking Berlin before your commie heroes could get there,and even after we handed it to them on a platter Yeah, sure. And Obama's great-uncle, Charlie Payne, was among the U.S. troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz. We all know it.
As you know, the temple followed a complex lunar calendar. So Enoch's calendar was not compatible with celebrating Jewish holy days as Jerusalem did. It is an interesting feature of the book for both Enoch fanbois and Enoch scoffers. : )
Historical FACTS,Bubbarade. And Obama's great-uncle, Charlie Payne, was among the U.S. troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz. He was a REMF who never liberated anything other than the stuff he stole. He gets to claim "he" was a PART of the forces that liberated the camps because he was one of tens of thousands attached to that army Corps. It was always the front line combat assault troops,Soviet,US,or Brits that liberated the camps. BTW,since I remembered Obomber claiming at one speech it was his grandfather that liberated a Nazi concentration camp,I looked up Charles Payne,and was his grandfather's brother,not his grandfather. Nobody is ever sure he was the PFC Charles T.Payne listed in the 89th Infantry Division rolls or not since he wasn't a PFC and has used a different middle initial. The 89th morning report the name came from just listed first and middle name initials and rank. It also says he enlisted. In another bio it says he only served from 1943 to 1945 and got out as a Private. If you was the same rank when he got out as 2 years later while serving in a infantry division during WW-2 he was a major screw up and he definitely did NOT serve as an infantryman. Due to deaths in infantry units,survivors got promoted to Corporal or Sgt as the unit fought in battles. Also,only draftees served 2 years. People that enlisted served a minimum of 3 years,and some served longer as did draftees in 1941. Their terms of service was "for the duration of the war." As with everything else related to Obomber,there is an awful lot of disinformation. We all know it. You don't know squat beyond commie dogma. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I don't see the word pope in Matthew 16 or anywhere else. Here are the facts. The Bible says to call no one father except for God This piece of shit pope insists on being called holy father. These Catholics pervert the Bible. They have changed the 10 commandments and they pray to a dead person Mary. Catholocism isn't what Jesus taught. It is what he warned about. My spit is more holy then any water that pope "blessed".
Scoffers!? Well there are some. I found this from the Chick.com questions and answers site. It just would not be a theological discussion without finding out what Jack's staff is thinking: Answer: I have a fundamental faith regarding the scriptures: God 'superintended' the texts, so that what God wanted in there is in there, and what God didn't want in there isn't. That means that if God through Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12, and summarizes the writing of Aratus and Cleanthes in Acts 17:28, it's only there because the quote itself states what the Biblical author wanted to say. It does not validate the entire writings of non-inspired authors. The same is true with the apocryphal (kept out of the Canon by God) Assumption of Moses and 2 Enoch. Those words say what the Bible author wanted to say. It does not say that the entire writings are therefore God's words. May God bless you as you read His preserved words in English, the King James Bible, exactly what God wanted to say. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
There were small pockets/units of resistance until 1947 or so, IIRC they were called Werewolves. A lot of them were young kids who popped up periodically to kill a few military and civilians but didn't accomplish anything. Some of them were turned in by the locals so they never really had a chance to get organized as it was feared they would... So it was 89th Infantry Division that liberated Auschwitz?
On April 4, 1945, the 89th overran Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp. Ohrdruf was the first Nazi concentration camp liberated by US troops in Germany. A week later, on April 12, Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower, George S. Patton, and Omar Bradley visited Ohrdruf to see, firsthand, evidence of Nazi atrocities against concentration camp prisoners. No the Russians did and only found about 5-10,000 inmates, the rest were force marched/transported by train to the west. Quite a few of them ended up in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp... So all needed is in Koran, if it is not there it is not needed. Following Muslim/Calvinist dogma of TULIP you deny human role. Muslims deny also that human nature could cooperate freely with Divine, especially in God-Man Jesus Christ. You treat Holy Scripture as if God dictated it to the human robots. But if you read the Holy Books with open heart, you see human authors, who were inspired but who retained their individuality and freedom.
Yes, Americans are exceptional. They went to Europe at the end of war and won.
The Werewolfen actually killed over 6000 Allied troops - a division's worth - in Germany in a guerrilla war between 1945 and 1949. They were vicious bastards. And they were torn up by the roots and executed.
He did say "call no man father" at one point, but he referred to men's fathers at another point. So, either he really meant that men were never, ever to use the word "Father" to speak of anybody but God (no, he didn't mean that), or he meant something more obvious: don't call anybody your spiritual father. So, am I adding to Scripture by supplying the implied word "spiritual" into the text? If you say "yes", then you can't use the word "father" to refer to your OWN father - and then Jesus raises a welter of contradiction when he says that men must HATE their father and mother, or when he calls SATAN the father of some present. Oy vey did Jesus use that word in so many different way. He meant spiritual father, and he was speaking to Jews. Still, there are so many words we could use for priests and popes instead of "Father", that we probably should use a different word, lest our use of the word be a stumbling block for our weaker brethren. You pretty much HAVE to call your OWN biological father "father", because there isn't any other word that WORKS regarding that person. "Hey you" isn't honoring him.
No. That was your boys,the Soviets. You DO know there was more than one camp,right? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Don't worry. We all understand the chip on your shoulder is why you can't admit the Soviets would have been speaking German if it hadn't been for that asshat King FDR bailing out his goomba Stalin. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
For me it does. However, just as when speaking with Protestants I seek to use Scripture as the basis of the discussion - because by the terms of their theology that is the ultimate and final authority; and just as, when demanded, I will use the KJV Only - because KJV Onlyists will accept only the KJV as TRUE Scripture; I will constrain myself in a public theological discussion with Protestants to use only the books of their abridged canon, and only in the KJV form which virtually all of them accept as authoritative. I do all of this fully recognizing what all is being lost and left aside, because otherwise there is no conversation, and there is enough in what is left to bind everybody to the same set of crucial practices. In fact, there is enough in just the words spoken by Elohiym, YHWH and Jesus alone to bind everybody to the full and correct beliefs and practices. Everything else is detail: history and example and argument. In this way, I sidestep all denominational disputes about the canon, or the translation - I just use the one that the hardest-bitten Protestants say is the only true Scripture. And once within Scripture, I will always acknowledge that anything and everything written therein, by anybody - including Paul in particular - is Scripture, and accept that it must be taken into account. Where I finally draw the line, though, is when an interpretation nullifies a commandment of Christ. Christ can nullify YHWH's earlier statements, and does, but nothing and nobody can ever nullify Christ. And Christ speaking later is more authoritative than Christ speaking earlier, if there appears to be a conflict between he himself. What this means is that where Christ speaks in Revelation, which is from the Throne Room of Heaven, AFTER the Resurrection, Ascenscion and Apostles have done their work - THOSE final words of Christ, which end the Bible, are THE most authoritative things of everything God says. So, for example, when Christ says to six churches, in a row, that they can lose what they gained, have their lampstand cast down, be spewed out of the mouth, and be ultimately rejected if they fail to persevere to the end and overcome their temptations - and that they, the baptized Christians washed in the blood of the land in original churches created by the apostles themselves - that THEY will be judged by their works - that right there authoritatively, definitively and absolutely ANSWERS THE QUESTION, with FINALITY. And Christians should not be debating that point any more, because God Almighty, IN HEAVEN, IN POWER, DICTATED that answer, SIX TIMES. There is no debate. There are people who can read, and there are people who are wrong. It[s all right there, in the KJV. Once that fact is accepted, all of the endless denominations debates SHOULD end, because Christians should realize that their theological debates will be MEANINGLESS at the end - at the end baptized washed in the blood Christians will be judged by their WORKS. So the focus should be, once one believes and is baptized and eats the body and blood, to do the WORKS demanded by Christ. Because they are the criteria for judgment, according to God Almighty, speaking directly to baptized Christians in real apostolic Churches (not pagans, not unbelievers, not people without faith - people who HAVE the faith already, and have done what is necessary and required. THAT is where our eyes should be. But that's hard. Yes, it is hard. Which is why, once again, our eyes should be on that, on doing the hard things. Bickering about books is easy. Giving away money is hard.
That is not true nor the motivation for the GI Bill. They congress remembered the Bonus March riots of the pre war and also the end of the depression was not assured yet.
I didn't say any of those things you accuse me of. I quoted a hard line view which was discussed earlier. I do, however, believe in God's Sovereign design to preserve His Written Words. And yes, He uses humans to do that. So no, the Bible did not fall out of the sky and land in our laps. Just as the Mona Lisa did not magically appear in the Louvre. Some good art critics and curators put the Mona Lisa with other wonderful collections of art. They knew it was worthy art by looking at it and knowing who the artist was. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
However, just as when speaking with Protestants I seek to use Scripture as the basis of the discussion - because by the terms of their theology that is the ultimate and final authority; and just as, when demanded, I will use the KJV Only - because KJV Onlyists will accept only the KJV as TRUE Scripture; I will constrain myself in a public theological discussion with Protestants to use only the books of their abridged canon, and only in the KJV form which virtually all of them accept as authoritative. Frankly a good majority of my Catholic family and friends really don't know what is meant by Sola Scriptura. Present company excluded of course. By far even more Protestants and Evangelicals don't know how SS was addressed originally in the Westminster confession and how early church fathers writings were used to argue SS. So no not every Evan/Prot throws the baby out with the bathwater. It's just everything from traditions and extra Biblical writings must stand the test of examination with regards to Scriptures. Many of the church fathers applied this same principle. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Let me put it differently. It pleases God to let people made in His Image to participate freely in His work. I would not say He "uses" them, but that He invites them to cooperate as His beloved children so they can leave traces of their own handiwork. He is not a "user" but the Father.
That is full blown heresy. Jesus Christ was and is fully God from eternity, and both fully God and fully man from the Incarnation into eternity. His statements are all equally authoritative. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
True, and in John 17 Jesus used the term Holy Father as a title for God. Obviously, Roman Catholics are blaspheming, when they use that title for the pope. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
If you believe that, then shun me and cease speaking with me.
If you believe that, then shun me and cease speaking with me. Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy. I would have to become a hermit :)
Well if you Europeans had stepped on Hitler's dick back in the mid 30s then you wouldn't have needed all those war supplies/troops we furnished during the war... BTA all the religious and ethnic squabbling over there wouldn't allow that would it??? I think he would rather we stayed out of it cause he thinks the Soviets would have defeated Germany all by itself and would be sucking the entire continent dry today instead of just parts of it. He's also forgetting Japan was on their back door itching for a fight (that we gave them) it could have won. The only thing the Soviets knew how to sail back in them days was a bathtub and probably a stolen/liberated one at that. (I wonder if their hygiene is still atrocious)??? Russia would have been in a 2 front war it couldn't have won and would be speaking "Germanese" these days!!! Europeans had peculiar weakness. They were not able to read the future. The main threat was Bolshevism and Fascists looked like a good counter force. Assad is the key evil in American eyes, so support to Islamists looks like a cool idea.
He is not a "user" but the Father. Yes your language, the way you describe it above is more accurate IMO. But I would add that what 'handiwork' one may do should Glorify God...Meaning God gets the Glory even for our own good actions. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Yes,it is true. The Bonus Marchers were in the 20's ,and the truth on that matter is there were no riots. What there was,was panic that started when the WH ordered them chased out of their campgrounds in the park,and ordered the army to move them out using mounted cavalry. Who isn't going to scream and run when facing the danger of getting trampled by a horse? ..also the end of the depression was not assured yet. The depression in the US ended when European and Asian nations went to war against one another,and we started selling them everything they needed from trucks to arms,to butter. WW-2 was what got us out of the depression,not King Franklin. All he accomplished his schemes was to make it last longer. WW-2 bailed him out and prevented him from being identified as the worst president in US history. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Doesn't he still deny that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies right up to the instant the Nazi's invaded the USSR? He's also forgetting Japan was on their back door itching for a fight (that we gave them) it could have won. Japan has already whipped them in 1905. The only reason they didn't end up occupying and controlling Russia was because it is so damn big and they just didn't have the population to do it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Or Mein Kampf... Where he laid out for everyone to see just what he was going to do... Or Mein Kampf... Many Americans loved him.
Tens of thousands of them, certainly. Over 11,000 ethnic Germans spent the war in internment camps, some confined as late as 1948. In addition, we demanded the extradition of thousands of Germans we considered suspicious from South America and put them in the same camps. The Japanese were interred in much larger numbers, about ten times as many. It didn't help their case that so many were in California or Hawaii or that it was suspected that enemy agents had aided in the attacks on Pearl Harbor, being embedded with the native Japanese in Hawaii.
Tens of thousands of them, certainly. You are joking?
No. My post was factual, not controversial. It is still true that Hitler's biggest fans in America (and South America) spent WW II in internment camps, just as the Japanese Americans did.
The comparison was with Europe before the war.
That's your church, not mine. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
That's your church, not mine. Most of my friends are not from the church. What is your church?
Comments (179 - 199) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestEven in astronomy, Enoch does offer its own solar calendar:
#140. To: redleghunter, Too Conservative (#133)
Proverbs? Good advice in there. It is not a doctrinal text. Nor is Ecclesiastes. As a matter of fact when I first read Ecclesiates I mentioned to a Bible study lead that Solomon was probably in his backsliding years when composing them. It is a very glum and depressing book.
#141. To: Vicomte13 (#140)
Enoch and the Didache are canon, because the Ethiopian Orthodox say they are.
#142. To: sneakypete (#126)
Yes,at Berlin.
#143. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#139)
Wonder how that measured up with the Temple dudes.
#144. To: A Pole (#142)
Yeah, sure.
#145. To: Willie Green (#45)
(Edited)
Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit. Not true... the papacy began with the Apostle Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. (Matthew 16:16~19)
#146. To: TooConservative (#143)
It is an interesting feature of the book for both Enoch fanbois and Enoch scoffers. : )
Question: I have been reading lately about how the Bible contains quotes from extracanonical texts as in Acts 17:28. Even the Old Testament quotes from rabbinical texts, right? Do you feel that these texts should have been omitted from the canon? Why would Jude quote from "The Assumption of Moses" in Jude 9 and then "The Book of Enoch" in Jude 14 if they are now considered 'apocryphal'?
#147. To: sneakypete (#136)
but Ike and the rest of the military commanders weren't about to let their experienced combat soldiers return to Conus until they were certain beyond all doubt that they had wiped out all of the Nazi resisters
#148. To: sneakypete (#144)
Nobody is ever sure he was the PFC Charles T.Payne listed in the 89th Infantry Division rolls or not since he wasn't a PFC and has used a different middle initial.
#149. To: A Pole (#148)
So it was 89th Infantry Division that liberated Auschwitz?
#150. To: redleghunter (#146)
God 'superintended' the texts, so that what God wanted in there is in there, and what God didn't want in there isn't.
#151. To: CZ82 (#149)
No the Russians did and only found about 5-10,000 inmates, the rest were force marched/transported by train to the west.
#152. To: CZ82 (#147)
#153. To: A K A Stone (#145)
The Bible says to call no one father except for God
#154. To: A Pole (#148)
So it was 89th Infantry Division that liberated Auschwitz?
#155. To: A Pole (#151)
Yes, Americans are exceptional. They went to Europe at the end of war and won.
#156. To: redleghunter (#141)
Well I guess that settles it:)
#157. To: sneakypete (#113)
HorseHillary. The economy was booming due to all of Europe's manufacturing being bombed to dust,and a booming American economy needed new skilled blue collar as well as white collar workers.
#158. To: A Pole, liberator, GarySpFc, CZ82 (#150)
#159. To: Vicomte13 (#156)
For me it does.
#160. To: redleghunter (#158)
I do, however, believe in God's Sovereign design to preserve His Written Words. And yes, He uses humans to do that.
#161. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#156)
And Christ speaking later is more authoritative than Christ speaking earlier, if there appears to be a conflict between he himself.
#162. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#153)
He did say "call no man father" at one point, but he referred to men's fathers at another point. So, either he really meant that men were never, ever to use the word "Father" to speak of anybody but God (no, he didn't mean that), or he meant something more obvious: don't call anybody your spiritual father.
#163. To: GarySpFC (#161)
That is full blown heresy.
#164. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFC (#163)
"That is full blown heresy."
#165. To: A Pole (#151)
#166. To: sneakypete (#155)
Don't worry. We all understand the chip on your shoulder is why you can't admit the Soviets would have been speaking German if it hadn't been for that asshat King FDR bailing out his goomba Stalin.
#167. To: CZ82 (#165)
Well if you Europeans had stepped on Hitler's dick back in the mid 30s
#168. To: A Pole (#160)
Let me put it differently. It pleases God to let people made in His Image to participate freely in His work. I would not say He "uses" them, but that He invites them to cooperate as His beloved children so they can leave traces of their own handiwork.
#169. To: Pericles (#157)
That is not true nor the motivation for the GI Bill. They congress remembered the Bonus March riots of the pre war
#170. To: CZ82, APole (#166)
I think he would rather we stayed out of it cause he thinks the Soviets would have defeated Germany all by itself and would be sucking the entire continent dry today instead of just parts of it.
#171. To: A Pole (#167)
Europeans had peculiar weakness. They were not able to read the future.
#172. To: CZ82 (#171)
Europeans had peculiar weakness. They were not able to read the future.
#173. To: A Pole (#172)
(Edited)
Many Americans loved him.
#174. To: TooConservative (#173)
Many Americans loved him.
#175. To: A Pole (#174)
#176. To: TooConservative (#175)
#177. To: A Pole (#164)
Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy.
#178. To: GarySpFC (#177)
"Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]