Progressive government is the antithesis of a biblically based republic.

stevevw · Jan 22, 2026

NxNW said:
You can read minds?

We don't need to because the shooter expressed his mind for everyone to see. Even his parents said he was radicalised to the Left.

NxNW said:
There is no radical trans or Leftist ideology.

Of course there is. All political movements end up having a radicalised ideology. Robinson was buying into this online to the point he hated Kirk so much he wanted him shut down for good.

Its the same radicalisation that happens under all civil rights isues like race, sex and gender. Some get radicalised over pushing their beliefs over others to the point of violence and murder.

NxNW said:
You haven't seen any evidence.

Of course we have. It was all over the media at the time. Even his parents agreed.

Family and friends of the 22-year-old accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk described his politics as veering left in recent years as he spent large amounts of time scrolling the “dark corners of the internet,”

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/charlie-kirk-murder-suspect-has-transgender-partner-mau-have-been-radicalised-online-9277943

NxNW said:
How can it be rubbish if it's accurate?

Because it does not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground. A piece of paper with a pie chart on it is not reality. The reality is attacks on churches and Christians in the US has doubled in just two years.

Thats a massive increase and sign of the hatred and violence out there. Add to this the rise in anti semetism and its not a pretty picture.

NxNW said:
It's been around for decades.

Well there you go a long outdated source. Today's reality paints a completely different picture.

NxNW said:
You sure they weren't following Jesus's example and cleansing the temple? That's what it looked like to me.

This only shows a bias based on Leftsm. The organiser has now been charged with breaching the rights of religious worship.

This is typical of the radicalised thinking. That they can justify traumatising worshippers and their children who were visibly upset in the name of what they believe is right according to Christ.

When all along it was a callous act of depriving the right or Christians to worship in peace. The act forbids anyone coming in and disrupting, intimidating or using force to disrupt religious worship. Their act meets this legal definition. So they are guilty of commiting a federal crime.

One of the people taken into custody is a Dem rep and the other a rep from ANIFA who let everyone know what their real aim is. A Marxist revolution. As he declared "you can kill the revolutionary but you can't kill the revolution". This is their real aim. To bring down the current establishment and instill a new order and to their own IMAGE and not Gods.

Thats not to mention that the premise on which they invaded the church was false. That ICE are not allowed to come in and enact federal laws. That because a pastor was associated with ICE that this gives them the right to invade a church.

If anything it is these people who need to be cleansed from the Temple. They are dangerous and radical that they think they can just come into a church and tramatise people. Imagine the Right coming into a BLM meeting or building and doing that.

NxNW said:
Why do you think the right is attacking churches? I wonder if it's related to their attack on the Capitol. Attacks on schools have increased too, to a much greater degree, but nobody on the right seems to be the slightest bit concerned about it.

Radical political attacks on churches is wrong fullstop by either side. Not just wrong, its illegal under the Constitution.

I am interested in the comment "cleansing the Temple". Are you saying that Christians can enter another church and start disrupting and agitating them in the name of cleansing the Temple or Christs church. Because if so you are more or less advocating for what you link is mentioning.

One group believes in their mind they hold the truth and are justified to enter another church and attack their religion and beliefs ?

In fact its almost fringing on radical Islamist who believe they can kill non believers. If you start believing you can attack other churchs based on religious belief. Then sooner or later its going to turn nasty.

NxNW · Jan 22, 2026

stevevw said:
We don't need to because the shooter expressed his mind for everyone to see.

No he didn't. You still don't know anything of his motivation.

stevevw said:
Even his parents said he was radicalised to the Left.

Sounds like Republicans trying to make excuses for being failures as parents.

stevevw said:
Of course there is. All political movements end up having a radicalised ideology. Robinson was buying into this online to the point he hated Kirk so much he wanted him shut down for good.

Again, assertions without evidence.

stevevw said:
Its the same radicalisation that happens under all civil rights isues like race, sex and gender. Some get radicalised over pushing their beliefs over others to the point of violence and murder.

Sounds like you're talking about ICE.

stevevw said:
Of course we have. It was all over the media at the time.

Media is not evidence.

stevevw said:
Even his parents agreed.

See above; making for their failed parenting.

stevevw said:
Because it does not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground. A piece of paper with a pie chart on it is not reality.

It's an accurate depiction of it.

stevevw said:
The reality is attacks on churches and Christians in the US has doubled in just two years.

Why do you think the right is so violent?

stevevw said:
Thats a massive increase and sign of the hatred and violence out there. Add to this the rise in anti semetism and its not a pretty picture.

The Nazis are all on the right. All of them.

stevevw said:
This is typical of the radicalised thinking. That they can justify traumatising worshippers and their children who were visibly upset in the name of what they believe is right according to Christ.

So it's wrong to follow the example Jesus set?

stevevw said:
When all along it was a callous act of depriving the right or Christians to worship in peace. The act forbids anyone coming in and disrupting, intimidating or using force to disrupt religious worship. Their act meets this legal definition. So they are guilty of commiting a federal crime.

Jesus used force, too. Why do you oppose his example?

stevevw said:
One of the people taken into custody is a Dem rep and the other a rep from ANIFA who let everyone know what their real aim is. A Marxist revolution. As he declared "you can kill the revolutionary but you can't kill the revolution". This is their real aim. To bring down the current establishment and instill a new order and to their own IMAGE and not Gods.

Again with the mind reading!

stevevw said:
If anything it is these people who need to be cleansed from the Temple. They are dangerous and radical that they think they can just come into a church and tramatise people. Imagine the Right coming into a BLM meeting or building and doing that.

You mean like January 6, when they tried to assassinate the Vice President and Speaker of the House?

stevevw said:
I am interested in the comment "cleansing the Temple". Are you saying that Christians can enter another church and start disrupting and agitating them in the name of cleansing the Temple or Christs church. Because if so you are more or less advocating for what you link is mentioning.

You'll have to read your Bible.

stevevw said:
One group believes in their mind they hold the truth and are justified to enter another church and attack their religion and beliefs ?

Or enter the Capitol?

stevevw said:
In fact its almost fringing on radical Islamist who believe they can kill non believers. If you start believing you can attack other churchs based on religious belief. Then sooner or later its going to turn nasty.

I guess you'll have to reconcile Jesus's actions with the law, then.

stevevw · Jan 23, 2026

NxNW said:
No he didn't. You still don't know anything of his motivation.

We know it was motivated by hate and something to do with Fascism.

NxNW said:
Sounds like Republicans trying to make excuses for being failures as parents.

Yet they loved their son dispite his problems and holding different beliefs to thim. That sounds like good parents. The exact opposite of their sons hate towards Kirk for being different.

Why start to tar good people because you hate Trump and Republicans so much. This is just cultivating more of the same hate.

NxNW said:
Again, assertions without evidence.

Well we know Robinson murdered Kirk. We know he hated him and his beliefs. Said this was spreading hate. His mother said he had become more radical to the Left.

NxNW said:
Sounds like you're talking about ICE.

You really hate Trump and the Rep don't you. Every chance you get you have to make a hateful statement against others who hold a different belief.

NxNW said:
Media is not evidence.

Yes but the witness statements from those who knew Robinson is evidence.

NxNW said:
See above; making for their failed parenting.

Your willing to make out good people are bad. That is cultivating the same hate based on people holding a different belief or political view.

NxNW said:
It's an accurate depiction of it.

I don't think a 20 year old image without any reference is good evidence.

NxNW said:
Why do you think the right is so violent?

I think its both Left and Right.

NxNW said:
The Nazis are all on the right. All of them.

So does that make Trump a Nazi.

NxNW said:
So it's wrong to follow the example Jesus set?

Yes Jesus said anyone who harms these innocent children is commiting a sin. Traumatising children is not being Christlike. Coming into another church and breaching their right to worship is not being Christlike.

NxNW said:
Jesus used force, too. Why do you oppose his example?

Because the people were worshipping Christ and not using the church as a commercial venture or for political means. It was the protesters who breached Gods house and brought politics in.

NxNW said:
Again with the mind reading!

Actually it comes directly out of the mouth of William Kelly, one of the agitators arrested.

"So you know, Pam Bondi, you want to come and arrest me? You want to come and give me charges? So be it. And for all the people giving me death threats, threatening my life, kill me. Go ahead, kill me. Because you know what? As Fred Hampton said, 'You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution!'"

https://x.com/westernlensman/status/2013735189357236531

Well he has been arrested and it turns out that he is a known agitator with connections to ANTIFA. Does Christ support the Marxist Revolution and ANTIFA.

NxNW said:
You mean like January 6, when they tried to assassinate the Vice President and Speaker of the House?

Has anyone been charged. We are talking about reality and not fake news.

But you are avoiding the point. Should these people who stormed a church and traumatised Christians including children be held accountable. Have they done anything wrong.

NxNW said:
You'll have to read your Bible.

I have and it does not say any such thing as you claim. You are actually using the bible according to your own personal interpretation.

The very fact that so called Christians are going into a Christian church and intimidating Christians based on a political ideology. Or even based on their interpretation of the bible. Is itself bad fruit. It cannot be justified as good fruit.

It causes division and hate and the biggest sin in the church today is division and hate. Which has now stepped from the secular world and into the church. Its all bad fruit.

So that you use the bible or try to justify something that causes division and hate in the name of Christianity is the problem.

NxNW said:
Or enter the Capitol?

Entering the capitol is not illegal. But those who intimidated or used terror to intimidate others. Yest this is wrong.

So now you have acknowledged that the same behaviour displayed by these agitators storming a church was also wrong.

But these are not necessarily examples of progressive governments as opposed to a biblically based republic. The people who went to the capitol were not all Christians. Protesting the capitol peacefully is not a religious thing but a constitutional right.

But storming a church for political reasons is not a constitutional right. In fact its breaching peoples constitutional rights.

For me determining the difference between a progressive government and a biblically based republic is more about social norms than politics. Politics is influenced by the social norms. But primarily its about belief in how the world is ordered which then influences political and economic order.

So for example progressive governments need to reflect the social norms of the time like pro abortion and SSM. The biblical norms will be anti abortion and traditional marriage.

That is not political but moral. It becomes political with individual civil rights. But these are also based on ethics and belief in how a society and the world should be ordered. Gods Kingdom on earth as opposed to humans Kingdom on earth. They are bound to clash.

NxNW said:
I guess you'll have to reconcile Jesus's actions with the law, then.

Can you give an example where Christ traumatised children or stormed in on Christians worshipping in church.

Say it aint so · Feb 8, 2026

Daniel Martinovich said:
View attachment 372568

There are two main evidences to this. The Bible and history or nature. We’ll start with what is the easy way to learn it. The Bible. After the time of martial law during Moses and Joshua. They established Ancient Israel as a free republic. Although it may seem a little odd, this due to God’s purpose in separating the nation from others to bring the world his word and the Messiah though it. The Mosaic law was Ancient Israel’s constitution. There was no provision in it for imposed central government. It had 12 states, and each was to be self-governing. Their constitution said to choose or elect wise leaders to lead each state in keeping the law. Then there was the Levitical tribe of priests who had parcels in each state who were the pastors of their day. Tithes which were in essence voluntary taxes were to be given to them for their support since they were not given enough land to support themselves. But the taxes were not collected. They were voluntarily given, and the priesthood had no physical authority. They could only influence the public. Their military was 100% militia each state controlled its own militia. To show how loose or free to choose their own way this confederation of tribes was in relation to the nation. The tribe of Benjamin went total Sodom and Gomorrah at one point. This was hardly a theocracy as some would mistakenly compare it to theocratic monarchies.

Within this structure God would supernaturally ordain judges to influence or lead the tribes in time of war or oppression by foreign armies and bring them back to God when they went astray. The republic lasted 400 years. Then they decided they no longer wanted the personal responsibility necessary to maintain a free republic and voted God out and a king in. They said they wanted a king to fight their battles for them. God warned them sternly that their kings would enslave them, but they refused to listen. Take heed to this you Christian nationalists who desire a “Christian prince” to fight your spiritual and physical battles for your nation. This is the pattern upon which the United States was founded but adjusted to fit its circumstances. 13 independent states with their own constitutions, that like the mosaic law laid out the people’s religious responsibilities necessary for remaining free republics. You can see these religious responsibilities highlighted in each state constitution on this web page- The Original State Constitutions. Like Ancient Israel these responsibilities relied on personal religious devotion and also like ancient Israel’ s Levitical priesthood, pastors were to help this along. In fact some states required towns to hire a pastor of their denominational choice and build a meeting house for religious instruction. Public education was religious in nature, including university level and required by the states but run by churches. Almost every state had a favored Christian denomination, but all allowed complete religious freedom for all Christians. This freedom extended to super minorities of other religions but generally they were not allowed to hold law making offices.

Finally, just like Ancient Israel's republic had supernaturally ordained judges to bring revival, awaking or divine truth that had grown dim to light. The USA operated on the same level. America’s judges were the George Whitfield’s, the Wesley’s, the Jonathon Edwards and Charles Finney’s. Just to name a few. This is so important in understanding the difference between biblically ordained republics versus progressive government. Our government in the states or federally were never given the power to determine truth. In fact, the founders argued prolifically against government ever being able to have that power. Self-evident truth as stated in the Declaration of Independence was already determined in the Bible. It was to be ascertained by the people themselves, and government was ordained to do nothing more than to protect the process though which people could ascertain the truth themselves. This is precisely what Jesus meant when he stated his kingdom was not of this world. Truth cannot be imposed from the top down the way the world kingdoms operated. This was due to human beings being so easily corrupted by the love of money and Government is the easiest way for people to get their hands on other folks money. If government is given that kind of power it will not be truth they are imposing upon the population anyway. It will be lies that empower rulers and give them access to the fruits of the labor of the people. Progressive government turns a biblically based republic on its head. Government determines truth and imposes it. Its tendency is towards corruption exists simply because government now has the power to do so.
After this, these 13 states formed central government for two specific purposes. National defense and keeping peace between the states regarding trade, currency and other interstate relations. Before the states signed on to this a Bill of Rights was added to the federal constitution that greatly restricted its power over the states. First and foremost was the 1st amendment that deals with the most important part of what would be a successful republic. It’s religion, the religion of and about Jesus Christ and its relation to human government which really needs contextualized into the time 1st amendment was written rather than within the context of today’s popular thought. In the world the colonies just fought a war against. The state controlled religion through state run churches. It was not a matter of “the church” running the state which is how it is portrayed in modern education as propaganda. These state-run churches were created to control Christianity. A witness to this fact is that up until Northern Europe won the right in war for the general population to posses and own Bibles. The personal possession of the Bible without the specific permission of the authorities in supposedly Christian theocratic monarchies was illegal. It led to unauthorized preaching that if caught often led to the death penalty. It did not matter what the hierarchies in these state-run churches wanted because some of those hierarchies wanted the people to own Bibles. The state did not. The rulers had read it. They, just like every communist dictatorship that arose in the modern world understood the Bible in the hands of the general public was a threat to their rule. They were correct about this and history sure bears witness to it. Due to the commercial printing press that arose right when the Roman Empire finally fell in 1453 AD. Bibles began to be illegally mass produced making it far to difficult for the authorities to keep up with it. A Bible reading public led to the Dutch Republic where Bible ownership and reading along with the personal possession of a firearm was required for political participation. Yet right across the border you could still get burned at the stake for getting caught with an unauthorized Bible. The thinking that developed due to a Bible reading public led to the development and establishment of a free world and while that thinking was still developing, it migrated north America.

In North America the Bible was the basis of all public education. It was the main course of study and everything else surrounded it. It remained like this until progressivism began to get a foothold in the early 20th century. At that point the progressive movement started to chip away at public educations use of the Bible in non-sectarian public education. Their crowning achievement came in the 1960’s when in defiance of the 1st amendment a bastardized reading of the 14th amendment was used by a progressive supreme court declared itself, actually declare the state ruler, over the religious views of the people and their states. Republican led states should have immediately defied this ruling, and still should today. However, my assumption is since the courts had after one hundred years of effort by the Republican party to pass civil rights laws finally started to rule in favor of those efforts. Republicans did not want to upset the apple cart of actually being able to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments on states who were violating them. So, in my opinion, settled for allowing judicial supremacy over the religious\political views of the people. But as we can now all see, this came with a horrendous cost. You see, the progressive ideology, no matter how it is presented, as democracy or whatever. makes the state supreme. State supremacy is simply not possible when a population is intimately aware of the contents of the Bible. Hence the reason for all dictatorships, kings, emperors to keep it from the public. Progressive government which is by its very nature is corrupt due to its violation of the laws of nature and natures God has and will continue to try to keep the public an ignorant as possible about an accurate understanding of the Bibles teachings. And by the way will quote it extensively in a nation where it has influence for purely political advantageous reasons. They all have. So now we'll look at the 1st amendment within the context it was written rather than the context a progressive supreme court gave it that has now been popularized by progressive dominated public education systems.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Continued in the next comment or go to link.

Progressive Government Verses Biblically Based Republics

Progressive government is the antithesis of a Biblically based republic.

wordservice.org

I could have sworn ancient Israel was a monarchy. In fact, the whole point of a coming Messiah was to restore that Kingdom, with a King sitting at the throne. The last thing it was, was a Republic.

Daniel Martinovich · Thursday at 7:21 PM

Nope, four hundred years of a republic that maximized freedom and personal responsibility. Then they voted God out and voted a king in.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 7:56 PM

Daniel Martinovich said:
Nope, four hundred years of a republic that maximized freedom and personal responsibility. Then they voted God out and voted a king in.

What republic are you talking about?

It can't be the US as the US hasn't been a republic for 400 years.
It can't be Rome, because Rome didn't kick out "God" (the name used for the Judeo/Christian god in English) and it didn't vote in a king.
I've run out of ideas.

Gene2memE · Friday at 5:19 AM

Hans Blaster said:
What republic are you talking about?

It can't be the US as the US hasn't been a republic for 400 years.
It can't be Rome, because Rome didn't kick out "God" (the name used for the Judeo/Christian god in English) and it didn't vote in a king.
I've run out of ideas.

Some scholars have argued that the coalition of rulers from the Israelite and Canaanite tribes created a 'republic' of sorts, where there was no centralised king and rule devolved to war leaders from each tribe. This is supposedly recounted in the books of Judges, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

The only problem is that the only evidence to support this is the Bible, and the slender few non-Biblical records available seem to indicate that much of this 'history' was post-hoc political propaganda and religious myth making. There's also a degree of (mostly) English Christian wishcasting in the 1600s and 1700 about republics and monarchies in Israel. The idea seems to take off in the US as well every time there some evangelical revival or similar.

You'd have to be a biblical literalist for the claim to even start to make sense.

Of course, this avoids the central problem of the thesis - the tribes during the Judges period weren't actually republics. Rulers were still hereditary positions, but the judges were probably drawn from a wider pool of closely aligned family groups (who would have strong priestly and military roles) and at least somewhat merit based. The ruling structure also probably differed between the tribes, but was likely more akin to that of a dynastic militant theocracy or a semi-constitutional monarchy with the occasional charismatic leader coming to power, rather than anything identifiable as a republic in its modern conception.

About the only thing going for the thesis is that Mosaic law was likely already formalised in the period, so there was a non-arbitrary sort of judicial role and 'constitutionalism' for lack of a better term. Rather than a king making all the rules.

Hans Blaster · Friday at 9:30 AM

Gene2memE said:
Some scholars have argued that the coalition of rulers from the Israelite and Canaanite tribes created a 'republic' of sorts, where there was no centralised king and rule devolved to war leaders from each tribe. This is supposedly recounted in the books of Judges, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

That's quite a stretch.

Gene2memE said:
The only problem is that the only evidence to support this is the Bible, and the slender few non-Biblical records available seem to indicate that much of this 'history' was post-hoc political propaganda and religious myth making. There's also a degree of (mostly) English Christian wishcasting in the 1600s and 1700 about republics and monarchies in Israel. The idea seems to take off in the US as well every time there some evangelical revival or similar.

Why is it silly Englishmen so often?

Gene2memE said:
You'd have to be a biblical literalist for the claim to even start to make sense.

Wouldn't that bring you to some sort of theocratic overlord in the "judges" period?

Gene2memE said:
Of course, this avoids the central problem of the thesis - the tribes during the Judges period weren't actually republics. Rulers were still hereditary positions, but the judges were probably drawn from a wider pool of closely aligned family groups (who would have strong priestly and military roles) and at least somewhat merit based. The ruling structure also probably differed between the tribes, but was likely more akin to that of a dynastic militant theocracy or a semi-constitutional monarchy with the occasional charismatic leader coming to power, rather than anything identifiable as a republic in its modern conception.

Or even a nearly contemporary conception.

Gene2memE said:
About the only thing going for the thesis is that Mosaic law was likely already formalised in the period, so there was a non-arbitrary sort of judicial role and 'constitutionalism' for lack of a better term. Rather than a king making all the rules.

I don't know what the evidence for that could be. None of the texts are even close to that old.

mindlight · 2026-02-14T00:50:31-0600

Daniel Martinovich said:
View attachment 372568

There are two main evidences to this. The Bible and history or nature. We’ll start with what is the easy way to learn it. The Bible. After the time of martial law during Moses and Joshua. They established Ancient Israel as a free republic. Although it may seem a little odd, this due to God’s purpose in separating the nation from others to bring the world his word and the Messiah though it. The Mosaic law was Ancient Israel’s constitution. There was no provision in it for imposed central government. It had 12 states, and each was to be self-governing. Their constitution said to choose or elect wise leaders to lead each state in keeping the law. Then there was the Levitical tribe of priests who had parcels in each state who were the pastors of their day. Tithes which were in essence voluntary taxes were to be given to them for their support since they were not given enough land to support themselves. But the taxes were not collected. They were voluntarily given, and the priesthood had no physical authority. They could only influence the public. Their military was 100% militia each state controlled its own militia. To show how loose or free to choose their own way this confederation of tribes was in relation to the nation. The tribe of Benjamin went total Sodom and Gomorrah at one point. This was hardly a theocracy as some would mistakenly compare it to theocratic monarchies.

Within this structure God would supernaturally ordain judges to influence or lead the tribes in time of war or oppression by foreign armies and bring them back to God when they went astray. The republic lasted 400 years. Then they decided they no longer wanted the personal responsibility necessary to maintain a free republic and voted God out and a king in. They said they wanted a king to fight their battles for them. God warned them sternly that their kings would enslave them, but they refused to listen. Take heed to this you Christian nationalists who desire a “Christian prince” to fight your spiritual and physical battles for your nation. This is the pattern upon which the United States was founded but adjusted to fit its circumstances. 13 independent states with their own constitutions, that like the mosaic law laid out the people’s religious responsibilities necessary for remaining free republics. You can see these religious responsibilities highlighted in each state constitution on this web page- The Original State Constitutions. Like Ancient Israel these responsibilities relied on personal religious devotion and also like ancient Israel’ s Levitical priesthood, pastors were to help this along. In fact some states required towns to hire a pastor of their denominational choice and build a meeting house for religious instruction. Public education was religious in nature, including university level and required by the states but run by churches. Almost every state had a favored Christian denomination, but all allowed complete religious freedom for all Christians. This freedom extended to super minorities of other religions but generally they were not allowed to hold law making offices.

Finally, just like Ancient Israel's republic had supernaturally ordained judges to bring revival, awaking or divine truth that had grown dim to light. The USA operated on the same level. America’s judges were the George Whitfield’s, the Wesley’s, the Jonathon Edwards and Charles Finney’s. Just to name a few. This is so important in understanding the difference between biblically ordained republics versus progressive government. Our government in the states or federally were never given the power to determine truth. In fact, the founders argued prolifically against government ever being able to have that power. Self-evident truth as stated in the Declaration of Independence was already determined in the Bible. It was to be ascertained by the people themselves, and government was ordained to do nothing more than to protect the process though which people could ascertain the truth themselves. This is precisely what Jesus meant when he stated his kingdom was not of this world. Truth cannot be imposed from the top down the way the world kingdoms operated. This was due to human beings being so easily corrupted by the love of money and Government is the easiest way for people to get their hands on other folks money. If government is given that kind of power it will not be truth they are imposing upon the population anyway. It will be lies that empower rulers and give them access to the fruits of the labor of the people. Progressive government turns a biblically based republic on its head. Government determines truth and imposes it. Its tendency is towards corruption exists simply because government now has the power to do so.
After this, these 13 states formed central government for two specific purposes. National defense and keeping peace between the states regarding trade, currency and other interstate relations. Before the states signed on to this a Bill of Rights was added to the federal constitution that greatly restricted its power over the states. First and foremost was the 1st amendment that deals with the most important part of what would be a successful republic. It’s religion, the religion of and about Jesus Christ and its relation to human government which really needs contextualized into the time 1st amendment was written rather than within the context of today’s popular thought. In the world the colonies just fought a war against. The state controlled religion through state run churches. It was not a matter of “the church” running the state which is how it is portrayed in modern education as propaganda. These state-run churches were created to control Christianity. A witness to this fact is that up until Northern Europe won the right in war for the general population to posses and own Bibles. The personal possession of the Bible without the specific permission of the authorities in supposedly Christian theocratic monarchies was illegal. It led to unauthorized preaching that if caught often led to the death penalty. It did not matter what the hierarchies in these state-run churches wanted because some of those hierarchies wanted the people to own Bibles. The state did not. The rulers had read it. They, just like every communist dictatorship that arose in the modern world understood the Bible in the hands of the general public was a threat to their rule. They were correct about this and history sure bears witness to it. Due to the commercial printing press that arose right when the Roman Empire finally fell in 1453 AD. Bibles began to be illegally mass produced making it far to difficult for the authorities to keep up with it. A Bible reading public led to the Dutch Republic where Bible ownership and reading along with the personal possession of a firearm was required for political participation. Yet right across the border you could still get burned at the stake for getting caught with an unauthorized Bible. The thinking that developed due to a Bible reading public led to the development and establishment of a free world and while that thinking was still developing, it migrated north America.

In North America the Bible was the basis of all public education. It was the main course of study and everything else surrounded it. It remained like this until progressivism began to get a foothold in the early 20th century. At that point the progressive movement started to chip away at public educations use of the Bible in non-sectarian public education. Their crowning achievement came in the 1960’s when in defiance of the 1st amendment a bastardized reading of the 14th amendment was used by a progressive supreme court declared itself, actually declare the state ruler, over the religious views of the people and their states. Republican led states should have immediately defied this ruling, and still should today. However, my assumption is since the courts had after one hundred years of effort by the Republican party to pass civil rights laws finally started to rule in favor of those efforts. Republicans did not want to upset the apple cart of actually being able to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments on states who were violating them. So, in my opinion, settled for allowing judicial supremacy over the religious\political views of the people. But as we can now all see, this came with a horrendous cost. You see, the progressive ideology, no matter how it is presented, as democracy or whatever. makes the state supreme. State supremacy is simply not possible when a population is intimately aware of the contents of the Bible. Hence the reason for all dictatorships, kings, emperors to keep it from the public. Progressive government which is by its very nature is corrupt due to its violation of the laws of nature and natures God has and will continue to try to keep the public an ignorant as possible about an accurate understanding of the Bibles teachings. And by the way will quote it extensively in a nation where it has influence for purely political advantageous reasons. They all have. So now we'll look at the 1st amendment within the context it was written rather than the context a progressive supreme court gave it that has now been popularized by progressive dominated public education systems.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Continued in the next comment or go to link.

Progressive Government Verses Biblically Based Republics

Progressive government is the antithesis of a Biblically based republic.

wordservice.org

There was a lot of meat in that although it felt a little like an attempt to graft an idealistic version of the history of the states onto a reading of scriptural models of governance.

The tribal confederation outlined in Judges failed because it was inherently disordered.

"Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” – Judges 21:25

Human monarchies have proven corrupt, theocracies fail due to a lack of obedience to God's will or the imposition of oppressive and narrow interpretations of truth, democracy assumes a majority knows what is just and true. Empires are external and often unjust.

We are called to respect the rule of appointed authorities (Rom 13:1-7). But our true allegiance is to the Kingdom of God. We have a messianic king as our ruler, The Lord of Lords and King of Kings. He will subdue and judge the nations. In the meantime we respect those God has appointed, and Charismatic Christians and Charismatic usurpers often rise to fill the void that waits for Christ. The final vision of the Kingdom is higher than Cromwells Republic, than the Dutch Free State or indeed the early USA. God will dwell with us directly and in us and all will know what is just, true and right.

mindlight · 2026-02-14T00:57:29-0600

stevevw said:
We have had decades now of preogressive ideology and enough time has passed for us to see the outcomes of such ideas and beliefs. The many lies told as a replacement for Gods law and order for the world.

A new world order was proclaimed with the revolutions of the mid 20th century. A counter culture claiming true freedom and happiness.

But what we are seeing is chaos and misery. Lies that destroy marriage, the family and society.

Now as these ideas begin to crack and crumble instead of realising the wrong they double down even fighting with violence to maintain the counter culture. Which is primarily aimed at God.

Its a battle between how we order society and the world. About who is God over the world. Humans or the one true God in Christ.

But did the rot start in governance or in the church? Theology has adopted a version of the Social Trinity that forgets the boundaries of pluralism stressing instead only equality of relationship between persons. Churches have personalised theology into existential experience and bred an egoism and schismatic opinionated version of freedom that bears little relationship to the bible texts

mindlight · 2026-02-14T01:02:57-0600

another_lost_guy said:
Many Christians like to go to atheist spaces with the motive to save souls and spread the gospel. Unless an atheist is seriously considering conversion, what motive does an atheist have to come to a Christian forum? @Hans Blaster if you can answer this question without sounding absolutely demonic I will be impressed.

In America: just 3 months ago there was the Annunciation Catholic School Shooting. Last year there was the Lakewood Church shooting. There are a lot more but I don't see myself reaching a number you will be satisfied with. Outside of America it is much, much worse. About a half billion Christians worldwide live under extreme persecution, the majority of which live in Africa, a place as a progressive you should have a soft spot for

In God's world what is an atheist space or a Christian space?

There may be consequences in preaching the gospel in the public square. Martyrdom is possible but we have the authority. A church that lives in ghettos is not a missiological one.

stevevw · 2026-02-14T06:29:08-0600

mindlight said:
But did the rot start in governance or in the church? Theology has adopted a version of the Social Trinity that forgets the boundaries of pluralism stressing instead only equality of relationship between persons. Churches have personalised theology into existential experience and bred an egoism and schismatic opinionated version of freedom that bears little relationship to the bible texts

I agree the church has also contributed. But in a different way. They obviously are not advocating that sin is ok. Though some have twisted Gods word and have allowed sin into the church.

Part of that is allowing the world and progressive politics into the church. In some ways they are even more culpable as they should know better.

But I think this is different to the obvious promotion of ideology that is designed to defy God and sow chaos.

Larniavc · 2026-02-14T06:43:32-0600

another_lost_guy said:
NarcIssism. Learn to spell.

rambot · 2026-02-14T08:38:27-0600

another_lost_guy said:
Many Christians like to go to atheist spaces with the motive to save souls and spread the gospel. Unless an atheist is seriously considering conversion, what motive does an atheist have to come to a Christian forum? @Hans Blaster if you can answer this question without sounding absolutely demonic I will be impressed.
P0

What about thr simple... he wanted to dialogue.

Is dialogue with an atheist without thr express purpose of saving their soul so demonic and evil that you couldn't even imagine it being given as a reason?

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Progressive government is the antithesis of a biblically based republic.

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

​

Friend

Call Me Al

Newbie

Call Me Al

See in the dark

​

See in the dark

See in the dark

inquisitive

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Senior Member

Similar threads