God and the United States are merged very strongly.

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I agree that people do not have to be talked into sin. The flesh wants to sin. Liberalism is the government of the flesh. It is all about giving people what others worked for, for excusing bad behavior, and for giving guilty consciences someone else to blame for their problems. It does not have room for a God who says that one thing is sin (or even an abomination) and another thing is holy. Liberalism loves a world of grays, where anything goes as long you don't get caught.

But, before my conservative brethren start high-fiving, we do have to recognize that the unrestrained capitalism of the last decade that puts people out of work in the name of pure profit and drives middle class families into poverty while the wealthy gain riches that they couldn't spend in a dozen lifetimes is only marginally better than liberalism. The profit motive can be a strong force for good but we all know what the bible says about the "love of money".

The problem with modern America is that we are all supposed to fit neatly into the "conservative" or "liberal" category, but most of us find ourselves struggling to live somewhere in the middle. On the whole, conservatism is better and considerably more moral than liberalism, but it is far from snow-white.
I recommend this: forget political talking points and just be a Christian. Let's all just follow Christ.
 
Upvote 0
O

OneWithTime

Guest
God is esoteric and is left to the individual, not to government. As bad as it may seem but liberals have been keeping the country more pure then conservatives. God is not the founder of governments, we are. First known governments were of Egypt and the Middle Eastern nations pre dating Christianity. Code of Hammurabi and all the Babylonian kingdoms have been the first creators of government and never within the knowledge of Jehovah. Government is not divine on any level.
Even when I was a Christian I found nothing divine about America nor did I think America should be a theocratic government. I had the utmost respect for others and their faiths and saw no reason to force mine on theirs.
America is a country and that is all it is at the end of the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GraceSeeker
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God is esoteric and is left to the individual, not to government. As bad as it may seem but liberals have been keeping the country more pure then conservatives. God is not the founder of governments, we are. First known governments were of Egypt and the Middle Eastern nations pre dating Christianity. Code of Hammurabi and all the Babylonian kingdoms have been the first creators of government and never within the knowledge of Jehovah. Government is not divine on any level.
Even when I was a Christian I found nothing divine about America nor did I think America should be a theocratic government. I had the utmost respect for others and their faiths and saw no reason to force mine on theirs.
America is a country and that is all it is at the end of the day.
Saying things do not make these true od so.
 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟17,297.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Saying things do not make these true od so.
My thoughts, exactly!! Now, please apply to the quote found below:
As difficult as this concept is for some liberals who try to twist American freedom into some type of humanism and moral relativity, Americans have chosen an absolute God as the bases of government. Why can some of you not see our freedoms folks not grasp the truth that Americans have never given up their faith in God? Americans have used the instructions of God to build on the Rock our freedoms and liberties into our government.

America is unique among democratic countries because we have kept God as a provider of our self-evident rights. If we allow humanist and liberals to take God out of government. as we rightly have done the church. we no longer have an authority for America;s greatness.
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Then, what's the elephant on your header mean?
The CF ask for this information for your profile, that is why. I am willing to take it down but that is not my the CF wants. The Donkey on some profiles tells me a lot about my fellow CF members as does those who do not post their politics. I read people by what they say and what they post.
 
Upvote 0

cavell

Senior Veteran
Jan 14, 2006
3,478
409
84
Yorkshire, England
✟34,982.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Gadfly said.....Before the liberals throw a counter attack to discredit what was just said, the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent another religion or foreign government from replacing the one God we had already selected to be the God of our nation. There is absolutely nothing illogical or out of historical context with the above interpretation. This is not just my opinion, this is hard rock factual.


Wow. Amen and AMEN. I thank the Lord God Almighty that on earth to day..... we have a remnant (millions in fact, encouraged by such as you dear Pastor) that have not bowed to baal, or kissed his feet.
 
Upvote 0
O

OneWithTime

Guest
Saying things do not make these true od so.

Saying it doesn't make it true but knowing it does. My words are truthful to everyone and the other half truthful to me. What is not truthful about my words? The fact that government has existed before us? None of my words are debatable on any level your aware of that right?
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Saying it doesn't make it true but knowing it does. My words are truthful to everyone and the other half truthful to me. What is not truthful about my words? The fact that government has existed before us? None of my words are debatable on any level your aware of that right?

that might be true had you said something but i could find nothing to which to respond.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟17,297.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
OneWithTime, the above comment "you're an odd little guy" sounds perilously close to ridicule and a personal attack. I don't know that it was meant that way, so I just report it as an observation. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was not intended that way, I know you'll want to be more careful in the future. Even those we may disagree with deserve respect as persons created in the image of God.
 
Upvote 0

mvktr2

Newbie
Sep 10, 2012
2
0
✟15,112.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Hello, this is my first post. ;) (sorry so long)

As to the original subject of this thread the constitution has either produced the current sorry state of governance in these united states or has been totally worthless in preventing it. Why? We can apply fault on any number of suspects; the faulty nature of man, the many shortcomings of the document, etc. I can through observation deduce the US Constitution is a mostly useless document at this time. That is not to deny its historical importance in relationship to governance. It certainly stands as the most important governmental document since the Magna Carta.

In his booklet 'The Law' Frederic Bastiat states the following truths:
('The Law' free to view online at: bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)

From the section What Is Law
"Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly."

"Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. ... Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?"


From the section The Complete Perversion Of The Law
"But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain ...

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? ... The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy."


From the section The Fate Of Non-Conformist
"If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that "You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests." If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought ..."

Bastiat and many others throughout the years have gone on to exert what I believe to be another truth: The best of men seek not to rule their fellow men. This is a chief problem with collective governance.

Having said that the most supreme form of governance, the first form of governance, the form of governance which we all exercise, and the most noble form of governance granted to humanity by God is self-governance. As Methodist we expressly accept the doctrine of freewill. Much of central-authoritative-collective governance denies both self-governance and the divine rights of freewill. The rhetoric of freedom in this nation has always far outpaced the reality of limited liberty, and the prospects are getting progressively worse.

Something else I could not help but address is a statement made about the state of unlimited capitalism in the past decades. We do NOT have capitalism in the US nor in much of the world anymore. What currently exist is unchecked politically connected privileged corporatism. Of corporatism Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Like it or not the US is today in the throes of mild-fascism. It is mild because the state does not yet fully control the means of production. What can not be denied though is that the state fully controls the conditions under which the means of production may be exercised. Everyone can think of examples of large corporations (Monsantos, CarGill, Goldman Sachs) who benefit GREATLY because of their influence upon government. Additional and just as destructive examples are the fact that almost 1/3rd of people in the US now must have some form of government license (translation: permission) to perform their jobs. One can continue this exercise to examine the lack of wisdom and infringement upon the exercise of individual liberty when small businesses are required to purchase business license, surprisingly truthfully called a privilege license. This overregulation, more justly called fascism, has reached the point that people now must register their lemonade stands and garage sales with local government or be fined/jailed for exercising simple property rights. The fact is if one dares resist such fines or subsequent jailing the government is more than willing to kill people over what boils down to selling lemonade or other goods on their own property... this can not be called liberty by any thinking rational person. On the contrary, denying property rights can only be labeled a form of oppression. Consider the audacity it takes for government to call a business license a privilege license. This rare glimpse clearly exposes the nature of government to consider all people and property under it's 'authority' subject to whatever instruction it may give no matter the moral detriment.

I close with this quote from Ed Abbey, 'If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist (this unjust) arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.'

Government CAN NOT exist without force and coercion. Thus the only just functions of government under this constitution or any set of articles is the protection of the natural rights granted by God to all of humankind.
 
Upvote 0
L

Lovely Lane

Guest
Q: What's the difference between libertarian and anarchist?
A: Nothing

Both forms failed.

Libertarians want government to protect life, liberty and property. The anarchist prefer no government. And yet, when Eisenhower kicked off the Interstate Highway system it was named National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. Even though the highway system was two-fold, it too met the need for homeland defense. Funny how Libertarians prefer not to pay tax to support it, and of course, the anarchist would prefer dirt paths.

Whenever man becomes protector, in this case of natural rights, there is always force and coercion used to control the masses of any civilization.

And when we hear Alarmist pipe out the tune of gloom and doom that God has been forgotten, remember, tomorrow the sun will rise beginning another day that God has given us. And I don't need a government to tell me that. God is in my heart, mind and soul, not in a paper from 1787 and not in a SCOTUS ruling. God doesn't belong in government, God is government and much more.
 
Upvote 0

mvktr2

Newbie
Sep 10, 2012
2
0
✟15,112.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Q: What's the difference between libertarian and anarchist?
A: Nothing

Both forms failed.

Libertarians want government to protect life, liberty and property. The anarchist prefer no government. And yet, when Eisenhower kicked off the Interstate Highway system it was named National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. Even though the highway system was two-fold, it too met the need for homeland defense. Funny how Libertarians prefer not to pay tax to support it, and of course, the anarchist would prefer dirt paths.

Whenever man becomes protector, in this case of natural rights, there is always force and coercion used to control the masses of any civilization.

And when we hear Alarmist pipe out the tune of gloom and doom that God has been forgotten, remember, tomorrow the sun will rise beginning another day that God has given us. And I don't need a government to tell me that. God is in my heart, mind and soul, not in a paper from 1787 and not in a SCOTUS ruling. God doesn't belong in government, God is government and much more.

Clearly without government there would be no roads! Then again many rural areas have more miles of private roads than public roads. :cool:

Lovely Lane, can you cite any examples of libertarian/anarchist governments/societies that have failed? As neither defense nor proof I offer that all forms of government have failed, even and especially the inherent form to all of mankind, self-government. For the record I'm neither an anarchist nor libertarian (though I do vacillate between libertarianism and other 'definitions').

The societies I'm aware of closest to libertarianism would have been an approximate 800 year period in early Irish history and early Icelandic culture pre Viking conquest. Additionally many tribal societies, perhaps a majority, have operated as societies built upon voluntarism and personal liberty with 'village elders' acting as the authority of conflict dispute. The Irish model (which included the institution of slavery and can't by any modern interpretation be considered a truly free state) worked quite well as a mostly voluntary society and was arranged thusly:

"The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All “freemen” who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath’s members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their “kings.” An important point is that, in contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Often, two or more tuatha decided to merge into a single, more efficient unit. As Professor Peden states, “the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension.”10 In short, they did not have the modern State with its claim to sovereignty over a given (usually expanding) territorial area, divorced from the landed property rights of its subjects; on the contrary, tuatha were voluntary associa[bless and do not curse]tions which only comprised the landed properties of its voluntary mem[bless and do not curse]bers. Historically, about 80 to 100 tuatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland.”

Point being, a society focused on individual liberty does work and is the most morally defensible model to have existed. Sure they've been a historical anomaly, but until 300 years or so ago the masses didn't think it right to live outside the rule of kings and royalty. Fact is our public schools teach us that our own nation was founded for the chief promotion of freedom and individual liberty. Surely no patriot would deny this rhetoric would they?

If the new covenant teaches anything about human relations beyond love one another it is that force or violence is only acceptable as a defensive device, Matthew 7:12 and all that jazz :thumbsup:! Then again it's completely not surprising considering a presidential candidate who suggests a foreign policy based on that verse is booed by what one could assume is the most 'Christian' audience of any of the republican debates (ref S. Carolina debate).
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello, this is my first post. ;) (sorry so long)

As to the original subject of this thread the constitution has either produced the current sorry state of governance in these united states or has been totally worthless in preventing it. Why? We can apply fault on any number of suspects; the faulty nature of man, the many shortcomings of the document, etc. I can through observation deduce the US Constitution is a mostly useless document at this time. That is not to deny its historical importance in relationship to governance. It certainly stands as the most important governmental document since the Magna Carta.

In his booklet 'The Law' Frederic Bastiat states the following truths:
('The Law' free to view online at: bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)

From the section What Is Law
"Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly."

"Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. ... Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?"


From the section The Complete Perversion Of The Law
"But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain ...

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? ... The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy."


From the section The Fate Of Non-Conformist
"If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that "You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests." If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought ..."

Bastiat and many others throughout the years have gone on to exert what I believe to be another truth: The best of men seek not to rule their fellow men. This is a chief problem with collective governance.

Having said that the most supreme form of governance, the first form of governance, the form of governance which we all exercise, and the most noble form of governance granted to humanity by God is self-governance. As Methodist we expressly accept the doctrine of freewill. Much of central-authoritative-collective governance denies both self-governance and the divine rights of freewill. The rhetoric of freedom in this nation has always far outpaced the reality of limited liberty, and the prospects are getting progressively worse.

Something else I could not help but address is a statement made about the state of unlimited capitalism in the past decades. We do NOT have capitalism in the US nor in much of the world anymore. What currently exist is unchecked politically connected privileged corporatism. Of corporatism Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Like it or not the US is today in the throes of mild-fascism. It is mild because the state does not yet fully control the means of production. What can not be denied though is that the state fully controls the conditions under which the means of production may be exercised. Everyone can think of examples of large corporations (Monsantos, CarGill, Goldman Sachs) who benefit GREATLY because of their influence upon government. Additional and just as destructive examples are the fact that almost 1/3rd of people in the US now must have some form of government license (translation: permission) to perform their jobs. One can continue this exercise to examine the lack of wisdom and infringement upon the exercise of individual liberty when small businesses are required to purchase business license, surprisingly truthfully called a privilege license. This overregulation, more justly called fascism, has reached the point that people now must register their lemonade stands and garage sales with local government or be fined/jailed for exercising simple property rights. The fact is if one dares resist such fines or subsequent jailing the government is more than willing to kill people over what boils down to selling lemonade or other goods on their own property... this can not be called liberty by any thinking rational person. On the contrary, denying property rights can only be labeled a form of oppression. Consider the audacity it takes for government to call a business license a privilege license. This rare glimpse clearly exposes the nature of government to consider all people and property under it's 'authority' subject to whatever instruction it may give no matter the moral detriment.

I close with this quote from Ed Abbey, 'If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist (this unjust) arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.'

Government CAN NOT exist without force and coercion. Thus the only just functions of government under this constitution or any set of articles is the protection of the natural rights granted by God to all of humankind.
Much of what you say is very good buy as the OP, I do no think you addressed the topic of this thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God is esoteric and is left to the individual, not to government. As bad as it may seem but liberals have been keeping the country more pure then conservatives. God is not the founder of governments, we are. First known governments were of Egypt and the Middle Eastern nations pre dating Christianity. Code of Hammurabi and all the Babylonian kingdoms have been the first creators of government and never within the knowledge of Jehovah. Government is not divine on any level.
Even when I was a Christian I found nothing divine about America nor did I think America should be a theocratic government. I had the utmost respect for others and their faiths and saw no reason to force mine on theirs.
America is a country and that is all it is at the end of the day.
The fact that you think God does not form governments is at best only your opinion. It is a fact that America chose God as their premise for government although there are many who say God is a myth. As a country we do not believe
God is not real. We are one nation under God and we trust in God. This is true whether you ageee or not.
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Saying it doesn't make it true but knowing it does. My words are truthful to everyone and the other half truthful to me. What is not truthful about my words? The fact that government has existed before us? None of my words are debatable on any level your aware of that right?
Nonsense, you were not around when the first government was formed and have no way of knowing who formed it. This thread is not about that topic so please stay on topic.
 
Upvote 0