- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I prefer our foreign policy to be determined by Realpolitik and not Hal Lindsay or the Left Behind book series.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The region would swallow up Israel and that would be that.
I prefer our foreign policy to be determined by Realpolitik and not Hal Lindsay or the Left Behind book series.
Here, maybe this will help ... the shining city on the hill ...See, here's the thing I never understood about the latter. Most Christians I come across in this country freak out about the idea of Iran going up against Israel and the big mighty U.S. has to stand up for her 'cause if they don't, she's screwed!
...but then out of the other side of their mouths they preach that nobody can harm Israel and that as soon as Iran and the other countries go after Israel it's the end of time and Jesus comes back.
LOL ... you were talking about prophecy ... so I introduced very specific prophecy addressing your expressed concern.Yes. What does that have to do with what I said?
Many would be more than happy to fight another war if it is perceived to help Israel.
The majority of your argument is stating your own anecdotal opinion as if it were fact. My own anecdotal experiences indicate that you are wrong, but I try whenever possible to not base my arguments on anecdotes alone. I have provided definitions for the world violence from sources other than myself. As far as I can tell simply putting someone in a cage against their will constitutes violence under these definitions. Injuries do not have to be physical, they can be any damage or harm. In the case of the definitions from WHO they use "deprivation" which occurs when confined.[snip]
USincognito was kind enough to provide. In the end it doesn't matter if it explicitly granted the power to hold slaves. All that matters is that slavery was constitutional.Ok, first of all, where, in the Constitution, does it explicitly grant the power to hold slaves?
I brought up slavery as a reason why I have a problem with the constitution.and then even true-blue human slavery to defend your position that caring for the poor with some tax revenue is despicable
I brought up slavery as a reason why I have a problem with the constitution.
It's not really a very good reason, though, since the Constitution also gives a process to amend the parts you don't think are right, like slavery (which was, in fact, amended).
I could understand your position if the Constitution held that slavery was irrevocable and we were just stuck with it unless we scrapped the Constitution, but that's not how it is.
After a bloody civil war.
I think you don't understand because the Constitution only had the viable mechanism to rectify slavery after the nation fought a bloody civil war. Which probably means that the mechanism for changing the Constitution is a bit fundamentally weak (if some states have an interest in and want to deny people fundimental liberties).
And women's rights weren't specifically protected under the Constitution until the early 1900s. When it happens is mostly irrelevant, the ability to change it has still been in there from the beginning.
The amendment process existed before the Constitution. It was one of the issues they debated heavily on prior to and shortly after writing it. Jefferson himself even thought we ought to have a revolution every generation with a new Constitution each time, and I personally think he was right, for exactly the reasons you bring up. If we had a new Constitution every generation, the document would better address the changing of the times.
Who knows? With such a system, maybe we could have gotten rid of slavery and given minorities and women their rights earlier than we did.
I am saying that it can be pointed to as a weakness of the origional constiution that slavery was protected and the mechanism for political and social change was violent.
Then you have a problem with the Constitution too as it is written (requiring a revolution every generation is not exactly provided for in the document itself.
The ultimate success of the system of government would be that it could have such revolutions non-violently.
*shrug* You could. Or you could just chock it up to the writers being victims of the times they lived in. Given their ideas, if they grew up like us in our modern times, they'd likely be the biggest liberals out there (speaking of classic liberalism)
Well, I wouldn't say I have a problem with the whole thing as it was written. Even if I thought it was perfect and handed down by angels on downy pillows from heaven itself and signed by G-d, I'd promote the whole "revolution and new constitution every generation" idea, simply because it makes sense.
Certainly. I think any democracy/republic could have non-violent revolution quite easily. Both sides just have to be willing to keep force off the table. That's one of the great failings of both sides during the Civil War. They weren't willing to take force off the table, which resulted in the war.
The majority of your argument is stating your own anecdotal opinion as if it were fact. My own anecdotal experiences indicate that you are wrong, but I try whenever possible to not base my arguments on anecdotes alone. I have provided definitions for the world violence from sources other than myself. As far as I can tell simply putting someone in a cage against their will constitutes violence under these these definitions.
all of the republican candidates except for paul seem trigger happy...
Yes, and it meets definitions provided by dictionaries and encyclopedias.Ok, so when someone has committed a crime, and is caught and sentenced for it and "put in a cage", against his will, that's violence to you?
Why would I want to protect rapists and murderers from violence used to forcefully subdue them? Do you not think violence should be used to stop and subdue rapists and murderers?Have you tried using that line of thinking to try to protect rapists and murderers from that which you call violence?
I'm still unaware where I brought up stealing or theft.um stealing, was it?
I already responded to this argument.What people who don't want to pay their taxes can do to avoid what you call violence in the future is to get out of the civilized world. I already made this point but it appears that it needs to be re-iterated.
I can't voice my beliefs? I can't vote according to my beliefs?you can't ask civilization to get out of your way just because you think you don't want it
Who are the arbiters of common good?Now if something's in the common good
It's not about me. I don't make enough money to pay income taxes. I believe it is wrong for people to initiate aggression against other people.even if you personally have issues with it and think it's unfair to you just because a tiny little buck out of your stash goes to it.
Ok, so when someone has committed a crime, and is caught and sentenced for it and "put in a cage", against his will, that's violence to you??
Interesting, except the point where we live in a society where our rights to live mainly violence and coercion free lives is protected by that same government and that same majority of voters.
I think that the "no initiation of violence" folks need to think about how societies look without a representative government that is the primary initiator of violence.
I guess it is the sort of odd conclusion you get when you only look at one side of the problem. The video is an appeal to peoples sense of morality and civility against the government and taxation, when a society with a government and taxation probably nurtured that morality and civility in the first place.
The issue generally isn't whether or not Christians should pay taxes. Usually the issue is whether people should advocate that politicians have the fruit of another persons labor taken under threat of violence. Some of us believe it's wrong to take the fruit of another person's labor under threat of violence so we vote and advocate that this practice be lessened and/or ceased.
Are you saying that if someone doesn't pay their taxes people with badges and guns won't come and take their property and/or put them in a cage? Or do you not consider those to be violent acts?
[/quote]"Taking ... under threat of violence" is different to you somehow than "stealing"? That seems like a semantic game on your part. Just because you don't use the actual word doesn't mean the concept isn't loud and clear.YI'm still unaware where I brought of stealing or theft.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?