We need government

[AlexDTX]

If you would read the OP, you see it has nothing to do with conservatives wanting no government. The OP deals with those who voted for Trump with the idea that he would dismantle much of government and bring on prosperity. Trump has certainly set out as a bull in the china shop to dismantle government. His education secretary wants to cut back public education; his EPA directory wants to end climate protections; his attorney general shows no interest in protecting the downtrodden; he appointed an energy secretary who tried to say he wanted to eliminate the department, but oops, he forgot what the department was called. That is not a commitment to real government. It is a commitment to tearing it apart. That is what the OP is about.

I am aware of the OP, which is why I really do not want to get into the argument.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am aware of the OP, which is why I really do not want to get into the argument.

Then why did you post here? And why did you write against something the OP did not say?

Now that you are here, do you have anything to say that is actually on the topic of the OP?

 

[AlexDTX]

Then why did you post here? And why did you write against something the OP did not say?

Now that you are here, do you have anything to say that is actually on the topic of the OP?

You are right, my comment was an aside, and should not have been made. I made a mistake in grabbing an ear of two fighting dogs.

I have much to say, but do not wish to say so because I have other interests I would rather attend to. My apologies for interjecting, It was foolish on my part.

 

[variant]

A king? Who wants a king? I prefer a democracy.

You seem to be suggesting a theocracy, but how would that work? Since everybody seems to have a different idea on what God wants, it seems that running the country by each doing what "God wants" is anarchy. For how would you stop the person who says God wants him to kill gay people or Muslims?

Well in a theocracy you will invariably have people who get to speak for God as God speaks very little.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well in a theocracy you will invariably have people who get to speak for God

I have met people like that. I even used to be one.

 

[variant]

I have met people like that. I even used to be one.

The process by which one person gets to speak for God and another person is silenced should always be concerning to us.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
1Sam.8

Refusing God and his prophet, "We the People" elected a popular king - a crown from the gutter - to be a nation and not a people; to be judged by evil men, and battle enemies instead of sin. They followed a government based on strength and appearance, rather than faithfulness to God; and God gave the people over to their carnality and to invasion. And when God sent Heaven's King, "We the People" murdered him. I'm no kool-aid drinking pawn of An-archs, because I know my Monarch.

For one thing, we (the USA of today) are not the nation of Israel. Your story about Samuel is the story of how Israel rejected being led by God in favor of an earthly king. No other nation was ever in that position. Not even Armenia which is the oldest Christian nation on earth.

Also, you conveniently ignore Romans 13 which explicitly directs us to be in submission to the government over us and that God has place that authority over us to mete out His Justice.

If you want to reject the Word of God's instructions to Christians about government that is certainly your right but don't pretend that you have a Christian view of government when in fact you have a worldly, mammon-oriented view of government.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The process by which one person gets to speak for God and another person is silenced should always be concerning to us.

That used to be easy--I always got to speak for God!

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are right, my comment was an aside, and should not have been made. I made a mistake in grabbing an ear of two fighting dogs.

I have much to say, but do not wish to say so because I have other interests I would rather attend to. My apologies for interjecting, It was foolish on my part.

No apology needed. If the topic of this thread does not interest you, there are plenty of other threads here.

 

[wing2000]

"Nine months into Donald Trump’s Presidency, the National Hurricane Center lacks a director, as does its parent agency, noaa. (nasa has no administrator, either; Trump’s candidate, Jim Bridenstine, a Republican Congressman from Oklahoma, has no scientific qualifications to speak of and has responded coyly to questions about climate change.) noaa’s budget summary for 2018 includes a five-million-dollar cut in funding for numerical weather prediction, “to slow the transition of advanced modeling research into operations for improved warnings and forecasts."

Our Weather-Prediction Models Keep Getting Better, and Hurricane Irma Is the Proof

....fortunately, the current NHC acting Director has a scientific background....maybe, the President will finally recognize the value of appointing qualified people (one can hope....):

Q & A for NHC - Ed Rappaport

 

[DaisyDay]

I am currently reading a book by Jeff Metaxes entitled with the famous phrase of Benjamin Franklin when asked what kind of government do we have. He answered, we have a republic, "If You Can Keep It."

Also known as Eric Metaxas...

The debate between conservatives and liberals is not do we need government, but how big the government should be. Metaxes argues in his book that a small government envisioned by the founders of the constitution was dependent upon a moral and virtuous people who exercised self control. If people live honestly then the need of government is for disaster relief and other such things. The reason we don't have a small government is because Americans today are amoral and lack self control.

Or because American has gone from a small, agrarian, 18th century nation to an enormous, complex superpower of the 21st century; the entire population of 1776 would fit in a small city. . Science and medicine barely existed in Franklin's time - there was no Department of Health as the causes of diseases were only guesses and often wrong. The Industrial Revolution had not yet begun in the States so the FFs had no concept of the massive pollution of lakes, rivers and air that was even possible or that entire species could be slaughtered to extinction and so no idea that such things should be regulated.

 

[Mare Liberum]

For one thing, we (the USA of today) are not the nation of Israel. Your story about Samuel is the story of how Israel rejected being led by God in favor of an earthly king. No other nation was ever in that position. Not even Armenia which is the oldest Christian nation on earth.

No other nation rejected God for an earthly king?!

You asked for scripture. Keep moving those goalposts.

Also, you conveniently ignore Romans 13 which explicitly directs us to be in submission to the government over us and that God has place that authority over us to mete out His Justice.

I've read Romans 13 lots of times. I've heard it preached by different men lots of times. The USG is allegedly a people's republic (even though Senators are popularly elected). The worst of wrath will be poured, not on our representatives, but on the voters who've maintained this wicked structure.

God will not be mocked, remember? Especially not by institutions who make a show of doing well, all while they deflect criticism of the lowest misdemeanor and evil conduct. Hail Victory! As long as the victors write the history, and the USG are the winners, Christian voters will justify their complicity through ludicrous Presentism.

If you're a voter, then you want this Warfare-Welfare system, and you vote for what it's clowns can promise - not for virtue nor even what they can deliver. This isn't giving honor to whom honor is due; the ballot-box is the cowardly worship of man-made gods. Drape any scripture on the naked emperor you wish, he still isn't instituted by God.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The worst of wrath will be poured, not on our representatives, but on the voters who've maintained this wicked structure.

I am confused what you want in the place of American democracy. A theocracy? If we did that, how would we know what God wanted?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

No other nation rejected God for an earthly king?!

Correct, no other nation rejected being led by God for an earthly king, because no other nation was given that option. Only Israel had that option.

You asked for scripture. Keep moving those goalposts.

What goalposts did I move? I realize that's a nice easy thing to say when you don't have any substance behind it but it's also meaningless because there's no substance behind it.

I've read Romans 13 lots of times. I've heard it preached by different men lots of times. The USG is allegedly a people's republic (even though Senators are popularly elected). The worst of wrath will be poured, not on our representatives, but on the voters who've maintained this wicked structure.

God will not be mocked, remember? Especially not by institutions who make a show of doing well, all while they deflect criticism of the lowest misdemeanor and evil conduct. Hail Victory! As long as the victors write the history, and the USG are the winners, Christian voters will justify their complicity through ludicrous Presentism.

If you're a voter, then you want this Warfare-Welfare system, and you vote for what it's clowns can promise - not for virtue nor even what they can deliver. This isn't giving honor to whom honor is due; the ballot-box is the cowardly worship of man-made gods. Drape any scripture on the naked emperor you wish, he still isn't instituted by God.

I'd love to reply but I can't understand what you're trying to say. I don't even know what the "USG" is but I wasn't talking about any "USG". I think you confused my post for another one, you may need to re-check who you replied to.

 

[AlexDTX]

Also known as Eric Metaxas...

Yes, thank your for the correction.

 

[Rion]

They may not have preached moral relativism, but they certainly practiced it.

No, they didn't. They had flawed morals, but it was not moral relativism.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Because I really have no interest in this argument. I find it interesting that you use the name of God in Tolkien's epic, Lord of the Rings and Silmarilion, as your name. Tolkien was a strong Catholic with a deep faith in Christ who was also instrumental in leading this fellow Inkling, CS Lewis to Christ. Yet you indicate that you follow an "other religion". What you may admire in his work is the very Christian principles that underlie his writing.

I chose "other-religion" several years ago because I was frustrated with Christians weaponizing our/their faith and turning it against non-Christians as a means of shutting down debate, and I wanted to see if that tag alone was enough to trigger someone into doing that.

Congratulations on taking the bait.

Furthermore, unless you are reading the actual documents any history we read is biased by the historian, and you can find any bias that you desire.

Or... we can look at the numbers. I'm not arguing subjective interpretations of history - I'm arguing numbers. We have a lower murder rate than we did in the colonies and we have fewer per-capita deaths by wars now than ever. We abolished slavery. We started treating women and minorities as kinda-sorta-equals. If the colonists were more moral than us, then there ought to be some objective, measurable manifestation of that morality, shouldn't there? What would a more moral people do? How would a more moral people live their life? What did they do that's better than us?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The debate between conservatives and liberals is not do we need government, but how big the government should be.

That's what the verbal debates are about on paper...

However, when you look at the numbers, it's pretty clear that both parties want big, expensive government, they just argue about what that revenue should be spent on.

Many on the GOP side of the fence often go on about "the founders this, the founders that"...however, the founders would be just as disgusted by a $700 Billion/year military (during peacetime no less) as they would be by a 30% income tax, or inefficient safety net programs.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Many on the GOP side of the fence often go on about "the founders this, the founders that"...however, the founders would be just as disgusted by a $700 Billion/year military (during peacetime no less) as they would be by a 30% income tax, or inefficient safety net programs.

Ah, but they would be for efficient safety nets.

The OP is about the National Weather Service. There is no more efficient way to coordinate national weather services than to do it under the umbrella of a federal program. Can you think of a more efficient way?

The same thing applies to FEMA.

When these organizations are adequately funded, they provide needed services. When funding is constantly cut back, as Republicans keep trying to do, these important services get cut back, and that hurts everybody.

 

[AlexDTX]

That's what the verbal debates are about on paper...

However, when you look at the numbers, it's pretty clear that both parties want big, expensive government, they just argue about what that revenue should be spent on.

Many on the GOP side of the fence often go on about "the founders this, the founders that"...however, the founders would be just as disgusted by a $700 Billion/year military (during peacetime no less) as they would be by a 30% income tax, or inefficient safety net programs.

Yes, I actually agree with you.