Creating a New Nation! The New C.S.A. (2)

Nathan Poe · Mar 20, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
I feel ya. However, Nathan Poe, this is really where the crux of this discussion lies, don't you think? The "WHO" is a very big factor here. I don't see us getting to "WHY THEY WERE WRITTEN" unless the "WHO" is going to be mentioned.

Granted, there is a connection here -- certainly we have to at least discuss the source of these laws if we're going to get into the reasoning behind them.

However, I think we're both going to have to concede that we are not going to agree on this point: You believe they came from God; I believe they came from men who then attributed them to God.

You see, I have a very difficult time with the "WHY" without the "WHO".

In other words, I believe that man outside of GOD would have just let anarchy go buck wild and we would have killed each other to the last man if there was no GOD.

I understand your belief; but history seems to disagree -- after all, men came up with many of the same rules on their own; look at the non-Judeo/Christian cultures who figured out a code of laws similar to the Hebrews.

The Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Egyptians, etc... they hardly needed Moses to tell them that "Don't kill each other, don't rape each other, and don't steal from each other," were good ideas to put down.

The notion that civilization couldn't have existed without GOD (I assume here you mean the GOD of the Bible) is belied by the very existence of the foreign nations mentioned in the Bible -- and none of them self-destructed. (indeed, most of them were far more of ta threat to the Hebrews than they were to themselves)

For example, the Babylonians were no followers of GOD, but they had a strong enough nation to hand the Hebrews' posteriors to them -- twice, IIRC.

Now, if you wanted to get more specific, and say that the Hebrews wouldv'e killed each other to the last man had it not been for God's intervention, I would agree with you, based on the book of Exodus. Here we see an entire nation of people going from years -- generations even -- of slavery to complete freedom practically overnight.

That's a sure recipe for Anarchy, and if someone (you say it was God, and I won't argue the point here) hadn't stepped in and laid down some ground rules, they most likely would've disintegrated right then and there -- to say nothing abou their long trip through the desert.

(On a side note, you think Moses was ever tempted to write in an 11th Commandment on his own: "Thou shalt stop asking, 'Are we there yet?' For the last time, NO!" )

Which brings us to the whole Genesis 1:1 theme. I can not even believe that there is no GOD. No matter how hard I try, I could never in this life time not believe that GOD exists. Even if (gigantic IF) I were proven wrong about Christianity, I still would believe that there was some kind of God/s out there. Whether it was Hindu, Muslim, Native American, Aliens... I don't care what; I'd believe that someone/ something made us.

And I'm certainly not asking you to abandon GOD, and I have no interest in trying to "prove" He doesn't exist, nto to you or anyone else. My only position here is that GOD did not write those laws -- and even that is irrelevent, since, for the sake of this discussion, I'll work under the premise that God did write them.

With that, I say once again that the "WHO" is more important than you think.

Actually, I fully understand how important the "WHO" is -- but I hope that we can agree that at least one of the purposes of the Law -- Keeping the newly-liberated Hebrews from going at each others' throats -- was a good one even if it hadn't come from God.

However, let us move forward if you will.

This is going to be a long and strange discussion.

I've got no problem with strange; I'm only glad it's still civil.

SOLA GRATIA.

SCIENTIA EST POTENTIA.

TheNewWorldMan · Mar 20, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
If you are going to go all liable and slanderous, and frothing at the mouth: at least get it right, man.

Your accusation of mass executions is an absolute lie. And you know it. It makes you feel good to slander someone, so you do it. Weak.

The truth is that if you were to create a NEW NATION, the optimum word being "NEW". NEW.

You've already stated your intent in your CSA to liquidate groups of people who statistically comprise large percentages of the population (including children who are "disrespectful" to their parents). You are the one who brought mass executions into the discussion.

NEW. <===

"N". "E". "W". <=== this spells new.

You are probably unaware of this word. Here; I'll help you out:

new

/nu, nyu/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo, nyoo] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun adjective 1.of recent origin, production, purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being: a new book. [/quote]

And blah blah blah (snipped paragraphs of talking down to your opponents rather than addressing their questions).

No matter how many times I explain the fact that if a group of people were to CREATE A NEW NATION FROM SCRATCH that it would not have to have "mass executions" to start it out; you can't get that concept. NO. This is due to your fixation on the word "insane". You love the word so much that you have to concentrate on this word and all else loses focus. Pure mental concentration on this one word captivates your mind and you can do nothing but fawn over it and love it and keep full mental focus on this word.

But your CSA would require mass executions. As you're so fond of pointing out, God commands you as ruler of your land to kill lots of undesirable people.

As far as "insane" goes, yes, generally most people would agree that someone who claims God commands them to set up a new land with themselves as Emperor and perform mass ethnic cleansing and genocide is insane. Sorry if you think everyone is crazy but you, but hey, you're the one who invented the idea of re-creating a racist slave state.

No human being can speak rational words or try to convey rational thoughts with you because your mind is dead set focused on one word and one word only. So your brain bars all attempts of others who try to convey to you some other word or concept.

When the leader of any state makes mass executions a cornerstone of state policy, yes, that will tend to overshadow said leader's position on issues like riparian rights or mass transit. You want to wear the crown, you take the heat. That's how ruling your own kingdom works, especially if your rulership is deranged and homicidal.

This is truly very sad. Because you seem to be fairly bright. You would probably be able to have good conversations with others if you'd only have the ability to see past this one single word.

No offense dude, but that would be like Hitler saying, "I revived the economy and gave my people a sense of purpose; can we just look past this whole Holocaust thing and have normal relations?" No, we can't. So while I concede that parts of your C.S.A. may in fact be Biblical, Godly and good, a cornerstone of Christian philosophy is that the end does not justify the means.

And all well and good to state that you'd just make all the bad people leave rather than killing them, but what if they refused to go? What if they asked, "Gee buddy, what gives you the right to expropriate my home and land and tell me to move? If you've got such a problem with me and people like me, why don't you leave? There's more of us than there are of you, and some of us are armed if you want to press the issue, so don't let the doorknob hit you where your good Lord split ya!"

What then, Herr SoF?

mpok1519 · Mar 20, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
If you are going to go all liable and slanderous, and frothing at the mouth: at least get it right, man.

Your accusation of mass executions is an absolute lie. And you know it. It makes you feel good to slander someone, so you do it. Weak.

The truth is that if you were to create a NEW NATION, the optimum word being "NEW". NEW.

NEW. <===

"N". "E". "W". <=== this spells new.

You are probably unaware of this word. Here; I'll help you out:

new

/nu, nyu/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo, nyoo] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun adjective 1.of recent origin, production, purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being: a new book. 2.of a kind now existing or appearing for the first time; novel: a new concept of the universe. 3.having but lately or but now come into knowledge: a new chemical element. 4.unfamiliar or strange (often fol. by to): ideas new to us; to visit new lands. 5.having but lately come to a place, position, status, etc.: a reception for our new minister. 6.unaccustomed (usually fol. by to): people new to such work. 7.coming or occurring afresh; further; additional: new gains. 8.fresh or unused: to start a new sheet of paper. 9.(of physical or moral qualities) different and better: The vacation made a new man of him. 10.other than the former or the old: a new era; in the New World. 11.being the later or latest of two or more things of the same kind: the New Testament; a new edition of Shakespeare. 12.(initial capital letter

) (of a language) in its latest known period, esp. as a living language at the present time: New High German. adverb 13.recently or lately (usually used in combination): The valley was green with new-planted crops. 14.freshly; anew or afresh (often used in combination): roses new washed with dew; new-mown hay. noun 15.something that is new; a new object, quality, condition, etc.: Ring out the old, ring in the new.=================================================

Now I know this is a very hard concept to understand if you are not paying attention to what someone else is saying and you are just concentrating on frothing at the mouth and slandering the person who is trying to reason with you. It is very tough indeed. I understand that. When you don't listen to someone talking to you and all you are doing is nodding your head: but you are not listening to them; you are just putting together your rebuttal and not actually listening to what they are saying: you will miss easy concepts like "NEW".

"NEW"!

"NEW".

If you were to create <=== see.

Create something "NEW".

Start from scratch and create something "NEW". Leaving the old. Breaking away from the old. Fleeing from the old. Running completely in the other direction from the old. Then CREATING something "NEW"!!! WOW!

I know this concept is still very very hard for you to concentrate on. Because right now you have flown from this page and started to think about nothing but creative ways of trying to slander me.

"NEW" is nowhere on your mind.

"NEW" is not a concept that you can concentrate on because you are way to busy trying to look cool and call me names to make yourself look good. So you can not hear, see, think, upon the simple concept of "NEW".

"NEW" can not enter into your mind right now. Only cute little quips about insanity can occupy that mind of yours. You are so focused on the word "insanity" that no other word can come up and register into the front of your mind. You are so focused on how you can use the word "insanity" in a sentence without becoming boring; that the word "NEW" can not take center stage in your mind.

As one who drifts off the road because they are focused on something other than the road in front of them; so you can not steer your mind toward the simple concept of "NEW".

No matter how many times I explain the fact that if a group of people were to CREATE A NEW NATION FROM SCRATCH that it would not have to have "mass executions" to start it out; you can't get that concept. NO. This is due to your fixation on the word "insane". You love the word so much that you have to concentrate on this word and all else loses focus. Pure mental concentration on this one word captivates your mind and you can do nothing but fawn over it and love it and keep full mental focus on this word.

No human being can speak rational words or try to convey rational thoughts with you because your mind is dead set focused on one word and one word only. So your brain bars all attempts of others who try to convey to you some other word or concept.

This is truly very sad. Because you seem to be fairly bright. You would probably be able to have good conversations with others if you'd only have the ability to see past this one single word.

It would be wonderful to see you be able to understand the concept of "NEW". It would be a major break through. Some of us would actually be able to hold a conversation with you.

Ah! But alas, we can not do this.

So sad.

I really wish you could understand this simple concept of "NEW".

A NEW NATION STARTED FROM SCRATCH. WOW.

Unfortunately the above line in your mind looks like this:

A INSANE BOUT OF INSANITY, IS INSANE. CIAO.

This is very sad. To see the potential to carry on a good conversation turned into a waste of time. Sad.

I am very sad that I had to waste all this time writing this post. I am sad that nothing I said here will be read and understood by you. Sad.

SOLI DEO GLORIA.

I know what new means.

lol

the fact that you think I don't is quite infantile. You know I do. But your idea of a 'new nation' is messed up.

Just becaue a nation is "new" doesn't make it right to make a decree "All homosexuals, and drug doers and disobidient children must leave or be executed en masse! Leave or you will be hanged!" So you're just going to force these people to leave?

Genocide and mass extradiction are BOTH tools of tyrannts. It creates refugees who are FORCED to leave their homes with NO WHERE to go.

Do you get me swat-fantasy guy?

--------------------------

And you keep ignoring my question; Would a widowed woman be FORCED to marry her brother-in-law against her wishes or will as commanded in the OT? Well, what if only the bro-in-law wishes to? Does he get his way and the woman is screwed?

-------------

anyway you answer only shows how you pander the Bible, prostituting it for evil. If you answer yes, or no, it shows your true colors, which is why I'm guessing you refuse to answer the question.

Answer the question swat-team guy.

mpok1519 · Mar 20, 2008

and its hard to aproach someone with respect when I am sure that said person would rather see me dead since I'm sure I've disobeyed my parents at one time or another.

its hard to respect someone who wants you dead.

ShieldOFaith · Mar 20, 2008

TheNewWorldMan said:
And all well and good to state that you'd just make all the bad people leave rather than killing them, but what if they refused to go? What if they asked, "Gee buddy, what gives you the right to expropriate my home and land and tell me to move? If you've got such a problem with me and people like me, why don't you leave? There's more of us than there are of you, and some of us are armed if you want to press the issue, so don't let the doorknob hit you where your good Lord split ya!"

What then, Herr SoF?

We would force them to leave. Plus there wouldn't be more of them than us.

SOLA GRATIA.

Paulos23 · Mar 20, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
We would force them to leave. Plus there wouldn't be more of them than us.

SOLA GRATIA.

I think you would be surprised at the number against you. And the number you would throw out of your group.

Or, for that matter, how many say they are with you but are just trying to save their own skins from what you would do to them.

And how would you force the ones that will not go, the ones that organize and arm themselves and help whatever government you are trying to overthrow take back the land. And that is the only way I can see you taking the land, by revolt and violence.

Did you think it would be peaceful? Do you think you can just say it and it would happen? There will be fighting and dieing. Do you want to be the cause of all that suffering?

Do you think all that blood will be worth it when you live in a free country already?

TheNewWorldMan · Mar 20, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
We would force them to leave. Plus there wouldn't be more of them than us.

SOLA GRATIA.

Ah, ethnic cleansing of all the Bad People. Gotcha.

You know, your whole CSA "let's get all the evil people" obsession reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode I saw awhile back. This prim and proper nuisance of a guy was running around, ranting how at a certain time that afternoon, the world's problems would be solved because all the bad people would be shrunk to four feet tall "so we'll know who they are."

No one believed him of course, but the man was in fact right. The Great Bad People Shrinking didn't quite go down like he'd expected, however. When zero hour came around, he was the only person in sight who was made into a dwarf.

Think about that little morality play, SoF. What if Someone decides you are one of the Bad People and decides they want to make you go away? Yeah, I can hear a childish voice now. "No, no, I'm not one of the Bad People, I'm not, I'M NOT! You can't send ME away!"

Romans 3:23...

mpok1519 · Mar 21, 2008

I think if SoF had children, he'd disagree with the Bible advocating the death of disobidient children.

Thats what I think. ~nods~

GrayCat · Mar 21, 2008

No one in their right mind would live in this Nation. They'd all flee to places like America.

mpok1519 · Mar 21, 2008

he wants to FORCE people formt heir homes and lives.

basically kick them out and say "we hate you, Jesus doesn't want you here."

SoF IS dillusional, and he needs help, real bad. If a judge read what he was saying here, yes, the judge would have enough probable cause to issue a writ of commitment to a mental institution. I've seen it happen for less.

Gremlins · Mar 21, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
We would force them to leave. Plus there wouldn't be more of them than us.

SOLA GRATIA.

So a suspension of freedom of movement, AND a tyrrany of the majority! Yaaaaaaaaaaaay!

FaithLikeARock · Mar 21, 2008

Say SOF, I would very much like a respond to my post. Here, let me remind you.

If you force Christianity on others, you are denying the true meaning of it. Christians are going to be persecuted. Christians are going to be denied. It was fated. Yet here Christians are WHINING about it, as if they have a right to anything otherwise. It's not true. True Believers will take it and still give everything they got. Not USE it. Christ didn't take the persecution that the Pharisees threw at Him and whine "YOU ARE PERSECUTING ME BECAUSE YOU'RE EVIL AND I'M GOOD!" No, He took it all, even to His crucifixion. Same with Stephen, the first martyr. A True Martyr doesn't COMPLAIN about his martyrdom, in fact I would gather to say that a TRUE Martyr worships God for his suffering. Just look at the Psalms.

Any so-called "Christian country" is probably led by the Anti-Christ. Because FORCING people to follow the beliefs of Christ doesn't save them or convert them. Instead it makes them rebel more and leads them down the path to destruction. It's sad when the main cause for rejection of the Holy Spirit IS Christians. Christians who are so obsessed that they practically beat non-believers into submission with their hellfire speeches and beliefs that Christianity should rule the world. No one wants to support something like that because it makes Christianity look like nothing more than a vanity government project. And it sickens me. And it probably sickens God as well.

Just the idea of a world ruled by "Christians" is so anti-Christian I can't stand it. Christianity has turned into a "WE'RE BEING SILENCED" but instead of doing what we are called to do and just talking louder, Christians have decided the best way to get the word out is to silence others. Which is nonsense! That is not what Christ intended at all!

SOF, your C.S.A project is not Christian and would destroy Christianity faster than any non-Christian belief, system, whatever, ever could. The number one cause of Christianity dying out is Christians who are too lazy to evangelize like they were called, and resort to silencing others. That is NOT True Evangelism. It's the tool the devil uses, and I for one will not work his game. If you really cared about these people you're so eager to see come to Christ, then neither would you.

Nathan Poe · Mar 21, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
We would force them to leave. Plus there wouldn't be more of them than us.

Just a friendly reminder -- I don't see anything in the OT about "forcing them to leave." GOD is quite explicit about putting them to death.

Do YOU want to be the one to tell God you didn't have the heart to carry out His commandments?

After all, not even the USA exiles its criminals (unless they're terrorists heading to GITMO -- still US territory), if you commit a crime in the US, you're not "forced to leave," you're punished.

I don't think the kind of people that will be attracted to the NEW C.S.A. in the first place are going to appreciate you going soft -- some might argue "limp-wristed" -- on sinners.

Biblical Law means nothing without Biblical enforcement -- and having the death penalty means nothing to a nation without the stomach to use it.

ShieldOFaith · Mar 24, 2008

FaithLikeARock said:
Say SOF, I would very much like a respond to my post. Unless, you just have nothing to post. Ignoring wisdom is foolish SOF. You seem to only respond to posts in which you think you can but those that use your same source, those who use the word of God to disprove you, you have nothing to say for that. So here, let me remind you.

I never said we'd force Christianity on anyone.

You would be free to leave any time you wanted.

Solo Gratia.

ShieldOFaith · Mar 24, 2008

mpok1519 said:
he wants to FORCE people formt heir homes and lives.

basically kick them out and say "we hate you, Jesus doesn't want you here."

SoF IS dillusional, and he needs help, real bad. If a judge read what he was saying here, yes, the judge would have enough probable cause to issue a writ of commitment to a mental institution. I've seen it happen for less.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You should read some of my posts and educate yourself.

Sola Gratia.

Nathan Poe · Mar 24, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
I never said we'd force Christianity on anyone.

You would be free to leave any time you wanted.

Solo Gratia.

Both of these statements seem to run afoul of the Biblical law the CSA is said to espouse. You've made Biblical promises, Shield -- the people will expect Biblical results.

In any case, Shield, surely you realize that the ones who want to leave are the last ones you need to worry about, don't you?

Rather, you should be concerned with the kinds of people your C.S.A. is going to attract.

You said (in so many words) that your C.S.A. was going to have a no-nonsense, zero-tolerence policy towards sin. Now you seem to be softening up on the ones you find within your borders.

You promised a Godly nation where, as in the OT, sinners would be publicly executed to glorify God. The citizens of the New C.S.A. are going to hold you to that promise, and will be none too happy when you renege at the first opportunity.

Go back on your promise to the people of the C.S.A., Shield, and they just might hang you.

FaithLikeARock · Mar 24, 2008

ShieldOFaith said:
I never said we'd force Christianity on anyone.

You would be free to leave any time you wanted.

Solo Gratia.

Except that is still force.

Unless, you plan on paying for anyone who comes forward saying they no longer want to live in that country to leave including a new home, a plane ticket and any other costs.

Nathan Poe · Mar 24, 2008

FaithLikeARock said:
Except that is still force.

Unless, you plan on paying for anyone who comes forward saying they no longer want to live in that country to leave including a new home, a plane ticket and any other costs.

I sincerely doubt that the citizens of the C.S.A. will look kindly on Shield's subsidizing sinners with their tax dollars -- what do you think?

FaithLikeARock · Mar 24, 2008

Nathan Poe said:
I sincerely doubt that the citizens of the C.S.A. will look kindly on Shield's subsidizing sinners with their tax dollars -- what do you think?

Exactly. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't balance out. He's either forcing people into religion or breaking his own rules.

Nathan Poe · Mar 24, 2008

FaithLikeARock said:
Exactly. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't balance out. He's either forcing people into religion or breaking his own rules.

And breaking his own rules will get him hanged in the town square by his own people.

I had originally begun a discussion with Shield on how unfeasable it is to reinstate Biblical law in postmodern society -- and here we see a better point than the one I was originally going for.

The people of the C.S.A. are going to expect to see some sinners hanged -- Shield had better deliver the goods, lest he find himself on the gibbet.

Creating a New Nation! The New C.S.A. (2)

Well-Known Member

phased plasma rifle in 40-watt range

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Never tell me the odds!

phased plasma rifle in 40-watt range

Veteran

I exist

Veteran

Regular Member

Let the human mind loose.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Let the human mind loose.

Well-Known Member

Let the human mind loose.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency