Image

From my own Little corner of the Thoughtcrime Gulag...

User avatar
OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF----------

Can any fellow Komrades about the Cube help me? I've been engaged recently in a series of discussions with my older sister about the "rampant racism on the right", and in her eyes, the Tea party in particular. Growing up in a fairly conservative family, I always felt she was on the same page as I (or at least close). But it seems lately she has completely bought into the ridiculous caracature of everything conservative from the MSM.

It seems to have stemmed from her church's teachings of "equality" "diversity" and other liberal hogwash (which I was unaware of until recently). She went on a missions trip to Uganda about 2 years ago, and since then I've gotten this vibe of "American White capitalism is destroying the planet" from her.

I've been listening to talk radio for a few years now (Limbaugh and sometimes Hannity) as well as reading anything I can get my hands on by Coulter, Sowell, Malkin, etc. I love my sister dearly, and I know she is a strong Christian, but I can't seem to articulate my thoughts/ fellings on the subject without starting a fight- so any advice would be appreciated! Otherwise, just consider this a Rant/Vent session... and thanks for the opportunity to do so.

PROG ON----- Back to all things Korrect!!!!!!

User avatar
Czar Czar wrote:OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF----------

Can any fellow Komrades about the Cube help me? I've been engaged recently in a series of discussions with my older sister about the "rampant racism on the right", and in her eyes, the Tea party in particular. ... ... I love my sister dearly, and I know she is a strong Christian, but I can't seem to articulate my thoughts/ fellings on the subject without starting a fight- so any advice would be appreciated! ...
.
Czar Czar,
.
I can't claim any great expertise on this subject other than personal experience. To do it well usually requires more self-discipline than I can muster. The technique most likely to succeed is one that prevents the other person from erecting as strong a barrier against information you want to impart than when you're debating a person not blinded by ideology or emotionalism.
.
What's the technique? It's called "active listening." How does it work? If you want to use this technique in conversations with your sister, I'll describe how it could work by using "I" to represent "you" and "you" representing your sister.
.
You say there's "rampant racism" on the "right." I'll concede to you that decades ago there were many people in the country who were overtly and unapologetically bigoted. I'll even cocede that such overt bigotry had been (for many, many decades) "socially acceptable" in large parts of the country that also happens to be the part of the country in which (paradoxically) a "limited government" philosophy was more popular than in other parts of the country. (Why do I say "paradoxically"? Because the bigots who claimed to favor "limited government" nevertheless tolerated governmental coercion to enforce racial segregation.) This is a realistic admission of an unpleasant nature of our country's past. But there's another realism that's usually overlooked and that is that even in parts of the country in which overt bigotry was not "socially acceptable" (and governmental power was not used to coercively require racial segregation), there was nevertheless a significant amount of racial prejudice reflected in neighborhood-demographic patterns.
.
I believe that even though racial relations are far from perfect, no one can rationally deny that our country and our society have made large strides away from bigotry and towards people judging each other by "the content of character" rather than the "color of skin."
.
So, I've conceded there's much in our country's past that warrants shame.
.
Now, I want to listen to you explain to me the specific things you have observed that prompt you to say there is "rampant racism on the right" today.
.
When she predictably says things such as "opposing ObamaCare" is really motivated by racial bigotry, ask her to explain how opposing ObamaCare serves such purpose.
.
Ask her whether she thinks it's impossible or wholly irrational for any non-bigoted person to oppose ObamaCare. If she says, "No," ask her whether Canadians who criticize their own system are motivated by racism or by the simple belief that government-run health care is vastly inferior to a private system. If she says Canadians opposing government run health care do so merely because they're racist ask her if she really thinks such Canadians are racists.
.
I doubt that in any one session that she would suddenly say, "You right-- I've been wrong." But there's one thing I do know. Forcing people to think by asking them to explain their thinking helps them better understand their own thinking. Then the brain goes to work in attempting to resolve inconsistencies and contradictions that are not immediately apparent during the discussion. Later, when the same person expresses an opinion, she may or may not be aware that there have been at least subtle changes in her thinking.
.
You can "win" by not trying to "win." Just let nature (brain-works) take its course.
.
The most important requirement is the hardest: Keep your voice as calm as Dick Cheney keeps his whenever he's asked a question (except of course when he understandably told intelligence-committee-leaker Sen. Patrick Leahy "go [eff] yourself" when Leahy tried to play "nice-nice" after have just publicly accused Cheney of being a virtual war criminal). People are more influenced by information stated in a matter-of-fact fasion than information explained in an emotional or excited tone (which people often misconstrue as evidence of fear on the part of the speaker that his views may not be sound).
.
This doesn't always work, but it often does. This approach lowers the other person's emotional resistance to persuasion.
.
Decades ago one of my best friends and I had an all-night debate on a huge philosophical issue. (I'll spare you the topic-- it would take too long to explain it.) Our views were diametrically opposed. We had an extremely lively discussion (but without anger). At the end, neither of us conceded anything to the other.
.
Weeks later, the same subject arose again. To our mutual surprise, each of us had found the other's argument more persuasive because we each found ourselves taking opposite sides from the sides we took during the all-night argument. Neither of us is stupid. Both of us are logical, rational people able to debate opposing views without anger.
.
--KOOK

User avatar
Image
Czar Czar, I know of what you speak intimately. I was baptized at the age 34 in a United Methodist congregation and I take my faith very seriously. All one has to do is read the UMC's Social Principles to understand where church leadership is. Fortunately, they're non binding. One of my brothers in my congregation is very left of center. We've had many heated discussions over the years and they've only increased in temperature ove the past 16 months as you can imagine.

It all comes down to the definition of compassion. One of our debates was on healthcare and he was very adamant about being compassionate. Fortunately he knows my heart and didn't accuse me of lacking compassion. The point I try to make is that You can't coerce compassion because it would no longer be compassion if you did. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is a good place to start because it's a lesson from the Master. The Samaritan took the care of the beaten individual into his own hands. He didn't petition the Romans to do it and he didn't go to the Temple and demand that the Priests and Levites do it either; he showed compassion.

I had an ongoing discussion with a very liberal pastor about the role of the church. My question to him was; Why would we give up our role to the government? We're called to feed, clothe and take care of our fellow man, so why would we cede that to others when we are the one's called? He dropped me as a friend on facebook. All his education couldn't answer a question from a guy with a GED and he dropped me.

There are other examples in the Mosaic law as well. Farmers were not to mow into the corners of their fields, they were not to go over their fields twice and they were not to beat their olive trees twice. All of this was to be a provision for the poor (gleaning), but note that the poor had to go and harvest themselves, they were not given a hand out. Read the book of Ruth in the Old Testament.

Over the past 15 years I've become quite acquainted with what is actually in the Bible. A careful reading of the Gospels will reveal a Jesus that makes you uncomfortable. Frankly He challenges me, but He never said to force anything on other people. It is always left for the individual to decide for. He never condemned people for having wealth, but he had issues with wealth having people.

I'm not sure if this will help, but it can be a start. If you want to convince someone, it's best to do it in their own language. Trust me I've been there. I'm conservative but that doesn't mean I don't, or can't love. Actually, real love speaks truth, and sometimes that can appear harsh to those who don't want to hear it.
Image
Now get back to your shoveling!

User avatar
Image I recently received a similar question in an email. Here's how I responded:

I have little experience in dealing with the leftist or left-leaning Christians, given that I grew up in a totalitarian atheist country. If I were to face with these issues I'd probably use the New Testament to show that the liberal claims that Jesus was a "socialist" are false.

Capitalism and individualism are more in line with His teaching than communism is. Whatever they are describing as "socialist ideas of Jesus" may have made perfect sense in the times of slavery, when most of the wealth was ill-gotten and the ruling classes weren't elected by the people. But in today's America, when the government is elected, wealth can and is mostly earned by people's honest labor, and upward mobility is unrestricted by class, cast, race, or religious biases, the very nature of material wealth is different. So applying the 1st century standards of a slave-owning society would be as foolish as derailing trains and blowing up bridges 50 years after the war ended.

Christ would be the first to object to theft in the form of a forced, government-sponsored redistribution of wealth. If I understand Christ correctly, He leaves it up to your individual free will, to be generous, moral, and earn your way to salvation. He didn't say that the government can earn it for you while you just relax and enjoy the ride. I think He would be appalled to learn that someone understands His teaching in this manner.

Hope this helps.

User avatar
{OFF}
Having had many arguments with my older sister, once she even split my nose, I can understand your difficulty.

In such rules of engagement, positioning is key. When these discussions occur, make sure you are in a higher position, either sitting on a chair in such a way that you sit higher than she, or even stand up. Make sure you are always making her to look up to you. If she tries to raise herself above you, gently, calmly put her back in place or walk away until you can once again gain the higher ground. Refrain from grand gesticulations.

Secondly, set tone of argument always. If she starts to raise her voice, lower yours even more. If you must, begin to almost whisper. If she gets too agitated you must tell her that you will not discuss if she cannot do so in calm manner. Offer her cool glass of water. Again, walk away if you must.

This is not about you proving your point, this is about her proving hers. I sometimes find it's good to write down what the other person is saying and then reading back what that person said to make sure I got it right so I can return to points the other person made later in the discussion. Keep asking how, why, where her ideas have been proven true. Religion is about someone's Truth more so than one's faith, and it's not easy to get someone bound by a particular truth, even if it's false thruth, to sway from that. She must be the one who realizes her so-called truth is empty and shallow. Truth does not change. A cloudless, smogless sunny sky will always be blue. Autumn always means the days will grow shorter. Truth is that simple.

You may like to read up on Mother Teresa. She did amazing things. One time she wanted a piece of land somewhere in South America I think it was, and the govt was determined to keep and use that land for some kind of a shopping mall. She was able to persuade them to not only let her congregation have the land 'now', but got a 100 year lease on it. Of course, she was Mother Teresa, and had no doubt in her mission/complete faith in her mission.

You need to accept that you won't be the one to 'convert' her, she must have her own epiphany. That's why you need to make her question her 'truths' by questioning her. This has risks as it may only confirm and strengthen what she believes, but it's making her question that's key.

{ON}
Quickly go to Jiffi-Lobo so you to be of coming to senses.

User avatar
If Jesus meant for us to be socialists, then why has it taken 2,000 years for “the faithful” to catch on to that?

You know that old saying, “If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?” Well, I believe the Left has their own variation: “If you can't beat 'em, take 'em over.” They haven't had much success trying to eliminate religion, so now they think to take it over—then they'll have the power to eliminate it if it suits them to do so.

I love how they keep screaming for separation of church and state, then flipflop and hijack Bible passages when it suits their agenda. They accuse Christianity of trying to force certain beliefs down people's throats, but the Left is trying to do the same thing to Christianity. They want a pope who'll end the celibacy requirement, allow gay and female priests, do away with the rules on birth control/abortion, etc. If you don't agree with Catholic doctrine, you don't have to belong; they don't burn you at the stake anymore. But clearly that's not enough for the Left.

They want to get rid of God and be God. They spit on the idea of divine creation or intelligent design, and embrace the theory of evolution—fine, so why are they constantly going against what they profess by preaching eugenics and thinking to protect certain species they deem endangered? They'd want the dinosaurs protected. Isn't evolution supposed to be something that happens by chance, by influences of nature, and not by artificial manipulation? Yet they are, in effect, interfering with evolution—playing God if you will.

Lastly, I remember when people on the Left used to say you can't legislate morality. Morality is what keeps society civilized. Yet they think they can legislate charity and compassion, things that come from the God-given goodness of our hearts, not from government mandates. I've noticed in recent years, they've stopped saying, “You can't legislate morality.” What they've done instead is hijack the word and changed its meaning to suit their own agenda. So now you have people like Al Gore saying that saving the world from global warming is a moral issue, and others on the Left calling universal health care the moral thing to do, etc. Suddenly everything the Left believes in has become “moral” to them, so what are they doing? What they told us twenty years we couldn't do, to wit, “legislate morality!”

Slightly unrelated but as long as I'm here and on a roll, we've heard the Left whine a lot lately about the lack of what they call “civil discourse.” I believe “civil discourse” is nothing but their code for “submission.” The lack of civil discourse = the lack of people who will sit down, shut up, and do as we tell them because it's good for them. Because we say so.

Thank you for letting me rant.

User avatar
Here's an interesting story from true Prog...

Liberal feminist activist goes to Haiti to fight racism, gets brutally raped, begs him to stop because she's a "Malcom X scholar"

Her facebook page

https://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/20 ... are-women/

Two weeks ago, on a Monday morning, I started to write what I thought was a very clever editorial about violence against women in Haiti. The case, I believed, was being overstated by women's organizations in need of additional resources. Ever committed to preserving the dignity of Black men in a world which constantly stereotypes them as violent savages, I viewed this writing as yet one more opportunity to fight "the man" on behalf of my brothers. That night, before I could finish the piece, I was held on a rooftop in Haiti and raped repeatedly by one of the very men who I had spent the bulk of my life advocating for.

It hurt. The experience was almost more than I could bear. I begged him to stop. Afraid he would kill me, I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn?t care that I was a Malcolm X scholar. He told me to shut up, and then slapped me in the face. Overpowered, I gave up fighting halfway through the night.

Accepting the helplessness of my situation, I chucked aside the Haiti bracelet I had worn so proudly for over a year, along with it, my dreams of human liberation. Someone, I told myself, would always be bigger and stronger than me. As a woman, my place in life had been ascribed from birth. A Chinese proverb says that women are like the grass, meant to be stepped on. The thought comforted me at the same time that it made me cringe.

...Now you'd think this experience opened her eyes to reality. But no, if you read the full story you'll see that she still blames the white patriarchy for filling black men with anger which they misdirect at women....Sigh, a Prog to the bitter end.

User avatar
OFFOFFOFF-

WOW- I'm so overwhelmed! Such great advice- and a first-ever (for me) reply FROM THE SQUARE HIMSELF!

wayne-garth.jpg
I'M NOT WORTHY! I'M NOT WORTHY!

Seriously though, you guys have the best parodies and the most brilliant sarcasm I've ever read- Thanks for the replies.

User avatar
Commissarka Pinkie wrote:
Slightly unrelated but as long as I'm here and on a roll, we've heard the Left whine a lot lately about the lack of what they call “civil discourse.” I believe “civil discourse” is nothing but their code for “submission.” The lack of civil discourse = the lack of people who will sit down, shut up, and do as we tell them because it's good for them. Because we say so.
Well said... if I posessed the technology to do so, I'd condense this idea and put it on a tea shirt.

User avatar
Image
Comrade Czar Czar,

I too, have a sister who's mind is on the same track. Take it from me, if she's already talking this way, she's a done gone prog.

On top of all of the advice you have already been given, which, I must say, is all good, I believe there is not much hope except for her life experiences of living in third world poverty and squalor. Believe me, that is the only thing that will bring her around.

And, throw every one of her actions up in her face, like: do you really think it's the right and moral thing to ride in a car? Don't you think you ought to walk? In other words, throw up the "live what you believe argument."

Actually, my sister did just that one time, and walked for miles with her dog, "Runchel Scrunch." The only problem was that Runchel Scrunch got tire of walking and she had to pick him up and continue walking. It was a rough lesson to learn.

User avatar
Czar Czar wrote:I'd condense this idea and put it on a tea shirt.
TEA SHIRT! A great Freudian "slip of the finger." It's what you wear for a Tea Party. We shall henceforth call all our prog-off T-shirts "Tea Shirts."

User avatar
That is funny- I was thinking about the yellow "don't tread on me" "t"shirts while I was writing that. So that would be a true "Tea" shirt!


User avatar
Czar Czar,
.
Among the things you said is that your sister is religious. One technique you might consider trying is an "active listening" session in which you ask her to explain her conclusions (or any particular conclusion) by asking her to begin with her premise and then take you to the conclusion.
.
When she finishes this process, you then calmly ask questions designed to provoke thought in her mind on the conclusions she has described. You should design your questions to take her through a particular thought process.
.
To enable her to understand why her religion ought to motivate her to support limited government (rather than a "social justice" form of government imposing on everyone a governmental orthodoxy on the full spectrum of moral issues in the guise of being secular but in the reality of imposing secular fundamentalism), you should ask questions designed to focus her mind on what is probably a premise of her religious beliefs.
.
What is such premise? Where/when did I hear this thought-process best expressed in a common-sense way?
.
It was in a speech (on C-SPAN years ago) on why devoutly religious people should oppose governmental dictats founded on religious doctrine. Who gave the speech? John Ashcroft, a fundamentalist Christian.
.
The essence of Ashcroft's point was this:
.
Religious people should support separation of Church and State because to combine the two (i.e., to have government enact legislation imposing religious orthodoxy) is offensive to God. Why? For government to do so defies God's will by attempting to deprive humans of free will. How so? Christians, Jews and non-Sharia Muslims believe that God's "will" (i.e., purpose) in creating humans was to make parts of the universe in the image of God-- i.e, parts which, unlike simple matter, would have free will, which God knew would necessarily include the free will to not "believe in" God or to disrespect and hate God rather than to "believe in" God and respect and love God. Does that mean that government can make no laws at all (anarchy)? Of course not. What it does mean is that the limited-government "litmust" test (consistent with God's will) for judging the appropriate extent of governmental edicts to control human behavior (i.e., to reward some kinds of behavior and to punish other kinds) is whether such edict protects free will by prohibiting or punishing or defeating conduct by humans that pose a threat to free will (i.e., liberty) or pose a threat to the ability of government to protect free will (liberty) generally. It's the very framework of the United States Constitution.
.
In its most simple form, the most important job of government is to prevent bad rather than to do good. Does that mean government can never constitutionally do "good"? Of course not-- especially when the "good" being done is to preserve, promote and defend liberty.
.
Why isn't such a belief-system founded on respect for free-will (liberty) a form of religious orthodoxy? Because it includes protection for the right to disbelieve in the value of liberty (but not protection for behavior designed to diminish liberty).
.
Finally, believing also that confession (candor) is not only good for the heart (and good for posts in the Thought-Crime Gulag free-speech zone unburdened by an obligation to act and think "progressively") but is also an essential element in any good-faith, mutually-respectful exchange of ideas I "confess" that I am not religious*, but I also am not a "secular fundamentalist" nor am I anti-religious (at least not "anti" any religion founded on the fundamental tenet that the exercise of free will -- i.e., liberty-- is the "reason" or "purpose" for human existence).
.
*To explain why I am not religious (but also not anti-religious) would be far beyond the scope of my task in seeking to offer useful advice to Czar Czar. Almost everyone I know, respect and love is religious. I respect their beliefs and they respect my not sharing their theological beliefs even though on most moral issues, we share the same beliefs but for different reasons.
.
KOOK

dear comrad sister czar czar, do not waist time fighting your sibling about the ways to purity. we must trust Angkar in all its decisions.

User avatar
Czar Czar wrote:
Commissarka Pinkie wrote:
Slightly unrelated but as long as I'm here and on a roll, we've heard the Left whine a lot lately about the lack of what they call “civil discourse.” I believe “civil discourse” is nothing but their code for “submission.” The lack of civil discourse = the lack of people who will sit down, shut up, and do as we tell them because it's good for them. Because we say so.
Well said... if I posessed the technology to do so, I'd condense this idea and put it on a tea shirt.
{OFF}
You had me thinking about this all day. Hundreds of ideas but this is the closest to what I want to say. Wish I had a good photoshop program, maybe it'd be better.

First, I think we should rename them 'repressives' - there is no 'progress' with these people.

So here goes (kinda cheesy)

repressive spin.jpg

{then I made this for the ON karakter}
You are of knowing there is no escapades.

bo submit.jpg

User avatar
Many thanks to all who responded.

I feel there may be some hope yet- in the course of our discussions last night, it came to light that she is a "moderate", and not a full blown Prog- at least, not yet. And by "moderate", I mean that in some issues, such as opposition to abortion, and day-to-day morality in general, I think her instincts are still within the scope of "Christian conservative". I think the problem is guilt stemming from charges made by her leftest friends (one of which I had a very engaging FB conversation with; he claimed to be a LibProgDem Christian, and proceeded to accuse me of approving the murder of George Tiller. No joke.) that she dosen't have a sufficient answer for; and since we all know that a common trait among Progressives is the abillity to LOAD on the guilt with false accusations which have absolutely NO factual basis, and proceed to burn you at the stake until you cave and accept their premise, I surmise that she began to agree with things like "White people's greed runs a world in need" or some such nonsense. (How's that for a run-on sentance?)

In retrospect, I actually enjoyed the whole exchange. I've been feeling the need to do SOMETHING about the Progressive tidal wave that is threatening to engulf our great country; up until now I have been too busy with work (irony?) to join my fellow Patriots at a Tea Party rally- but I believe I've been given an opportunity within my own small sphere of influence to make the case for Liberty and Prosperity. Maybe I'll get lucky, and help open a few eyes along the way.

User avatar
Czar Czar wrote:
Commissarka Pinkie wrote:
Slightly unrelated but as long as I'm here and on a roll, we've heard the Left whine a lot lately about the lack of what they call “civil discourse.” I believe “civil discourse” is nothing but their code for “submission.” The lack of civil discourse = the lack of people who will sit down, shut up, and do as we tell them because it's good for them. Because we say so.
Well said... if I posessed the technology to do so, I'd condense this idea and put it on a tea shirt.
Funny you should mention a t-shirt, because what made the idea click in my head is when I recently saw a car with a bumper sticker (green background) that said, "Choose Civility." I got to thinking, what's with the Left and their sudden obsession with "civil discourse" and their perceived lack of it on the Right?

Granted, the idea of "civil discourse" is nothing new. On leftwing sites we've trolled in recent years, the moonbats demanded "civil discourse" in our posts, and it quickly became clear what they really meant by that was "no conservative views allowed." It had nothing to do with civility, unless you go by its absolute narrowest definition of being polite and agreeable to the point you don't want to risk offending anyone, in which case, why bother voicing your opinion at all?

But the term is enjoying more widespread use since last year's tea parties and townhalls, and just seeing that stupid bumpersticker was like an epiphany. It's not about politeness or agreeing to disagree. It's about too many Americans refusing to submit like brain dead sheep to the Left's agenda. It's about the Left's hellbent determination to shut down all dissent and silence the opposition. Conservatives have been doormats for too long; being nice and going along to get along while the Left stomps all over us and especially our freedom. Now we are finally standing up for ourselves and the shocked, horrified Left doesn't like it one stinking bit.

But if brevity is the soul of wit, then I lack the soul to make it fit on a T-shirt or bumpersticker.

User avatar
Mrs Al Czarweary wrote:
Czar Czar wrote:
Commissarka Pinkie wrote:
Slightly unrelated but as long as I'm here and on a roll, we've heard the Left whine a lot lately about the lack of what they call “civil discourse.” I believe “civil discourse” is nothing but their code for “submission.” The lack of civil discourse = the lack of people who will sit down, shut up, and do as we tell them because it's good for them. Because we say so.
Well said... if I posessed the technology to do so, I'd condense this idea and put it on a tea shirt.
{OFF}
You had me thinking about this all day. Hundreds of ideas but this is the closest to what I want to say. Wish I had a good photoshop program, maybe it'd be better.

First, I think we should rename them 'repressives' - there is no 'progress' with these people.

So here goes (kinda cheesy)

{then I made this for the ON karakter}
You are of knowing there is no escapades.

bo submit.jpg
Mrs. AlCzarWeary, Nice artwork. --KOOK

User avatar
Mrs, Al Czarweary,Image
you seem to do very well with the program that you do use. Very nice graphics.

There does seem to be a push in the mainline denominations as of late. The bishops of the UMC have begun to take on environmental issues. Here's a letter that was written to the denomination. It is to be read to the local congregation, if they want to read it; Methodists are big on the local church. There is also a prepared Bible study that goes along with it. There is very little mention of Jesus in this letter and a lot about God's creation. Although it's somewhat vague there are some issues that I have with some of it. I told my pastor that I plan on being at the studies and will be actively engaged in debunking any "Global Warming" mythology.Image I remain,Dr. Chicago

User avatar
Commissarka Pinkie wrote:
Granted, the idea of "civil discourse" is nothing new. On leftwing sites we've trolled in recent years, the moonbats demanded "civil discourse" in our posts, and it quickly became clear what they really meant by that was "no conservative views allowed." It had nothing to do with civility, unless you go by its absolute narrowest definition of being polite and agreeable to the point you don't want to risk offending anyone, in which case, why bother voicing your opinion at all?

But the term is enjoying more widespread use since last year's tea parties and townhalls, and just seeing that stupid bumpersticker was like an epiphany. It's not about politeness or agreeing to disagree. It's about too many Americans refusing to submit like brain dead sheep to the Left's agenda. It's about the Left's hellbent determination to shut down all dissent and silence the opposition. Conservatives have been doormats for too long; being nice and going along to get along while the Left stomps all over us and especially our freedom. Now we are finally standing up for ourselves and the shocked, horrified Left doesn't like it one stinking bit.
Very well stated. I used to belong to a church that, while morally conservative, was adamantly pacifist (or non-resistant, in their termanology). I had somewhat of a crisis of consience after reading a book by John Eldredge called "Wild at Heart" that dealt specifically with modern American culture refusing to "give men permission to BE Men." It was a real eye-opener for me; his basic philosophy was that the world needs good men to stand up to & be just as adamant and bullish towards evil/ evil people, as they are towards us. It's the bullies of the world like Hitler, Stalin, and ideologically, the New American Left, who hope we accept their demands of "civil discourse", and fold like a cheap suit before their Tyranny. Not me; not anymore.

User avatar
Commissarka Pinkie wrote:
Czar Czar wrote:
Commissarka Pinkie wrote:
Slightly unrelated but as long as I'm here and on a roll, we've heard the Left whine a lot lately about the lack of what they call “civil discourse.” I believe “civil discourse” is nothing but their code for “submission.” The lack of civil discourse = the lack of people who will sit down, shut up, and do as we tell them because it's good for them. Because we say so.
Well said... if I posessed the technology to do so, I'd condense this idea and put it on a tea shirt.
Funny you should mention a t-shirt, because what made the idea click in my head is when I recently saw a car with a bumper sticker (green background) that said, "Choose Civility." I got to thinking, what's with the Left and their sudden obsession with "civil discourse" and their perceived lack of it on the Right?

Granted, the idea of "civil discourse" is nothing new. On leftwing sites we've trolled in recent years, the moonbats demanded "civil discourse" in our posts, and it quickly became clear what they really meant by that was "no conservative views allowed." It had nothing to do with civility, unless you go by its absolute narrowest definition of being polite and agreeable to the point you don't want to risk offending anyone, in which case, why bother voicing your opinion at all?

But the term is enjoying more widespread use since last year's tea parties and townhalls, and just seeing that stupid bumpersticker was like an epiphany. It's not about politeness or agreeing to disagree. It's about too many Americans refusing to submit like brain dead sheep to the Left's agenda. It's about the Left's hellbent determination to shut down all dissent and silence the opposition. Conservatives have been doormats for too long; being nice and going along to get along while the Left stomps all over us and especially our freedom. Now we are finally standing up for ourselves and the shocked, horrified Left doesn't like it one stinking bit.

But if brevity is the soul of wit, then I lack the soul to make it fit on a T-shirt or bumpersticker.

Excellent observation.

I don't know that there is a polite way to say that we are not dogs and the government is not our master.

User avatar
ImageSo sorry. These have been excellent comments, so there's not much to add. We probably all have at least one in our family that is far OFF track with a "socialist gospel" which is completely un-Christian. The Lord knew this was to be and is spoken of often in the Bible.. these ministers in so many churches are "false teachers" spreading a Bible and gospel of their own making.
My only advise is to continue to speak to your sister and PRAY. Lord knows your plight, your concerns, your needs and your heartbreak. Don't doubt your faith that His will, will supersede your sisters rejection of truth. He is the only One able to remove our self-imposed blinders.

Prog OFF OFF OFF... <Unplugged>
Let's enter into the philosophy of the first church. I think it will help with understanding. Everything Jesus did was to glorify the Father. All the apostles did things to glorify God. That's where the liberals go off. Yes, we need to help our neighbor, but the Church is supposed to give God credit and glory. The secular church want to give glory to the state.
Realize the difference - Judas wanted to give the 30 silver pieces to the poor. Jesus wanted to become poverty stricken and placed on a cross so that a resurrection could occur. The Apostle Paul spent most of his ministry years in prison. He said it was for the sake of the Gospel. The Bible always mentions a temporary life and an eternal life. Paul said "For me to Live is Christ, to die is gain." Christians were persecuted and murdered for centuries because they believed this world was not their ruler.

I suggest you try to convince your sister that money is not God's purpose. He said money is the root of all evil. Rather, God's purpose is doing things that bring glory to himself. Sometimes it means great miracles, but those miracles are always out of need. Sometimes God says 'straighten up or I'll spew you out of my mouth" (Quote from Revelation.). Because it's a matter of who gets the credit. Will it be God or the State? If the state takes the credit for anything (Feeding the poor, cooling the earth) that's ultimately God's responsibility (Give us this day), it's outside of the Christian faith, and is ultimately liberation theology. God would rather us poor and trust in him, in Jail like Paul, and bringing him Glory, than sitting down doing nothing and collecting the riches from others.
I always encourage others to sit and think about how loving God is, how we need him so much, and to thank him whenever anything goes wrong. Thanking God for bad things means we have character. Pray with her, just thanking God. That brings God glory. She'll get the message.
<on>
So comrades. I am not guilty of incitement. I plead the 3,16th amendment of the supreme state. I have a direct connection with the Fatherland of the Son and you cannot prosecute.

User avatar
Welcome Comrade KorporalJamo,

As a made prog, I can say that my mentor, Karl Marx, and I completely agree with you about the money thing. So does Fidel Castro, and other maximum leaders who have implemented our glorious system. Who needs money when everything you need is provided by the glorious state?

{Prog Off}

Francisco's money speech - From "Atlas Shrugged"

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?..."

User avatar
KorporalJamo wrote:He said money is the root of all evil.

I'll have to disagree here. A more accurate rendering from the original Greek may be: "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil." The irrational, destructive love of money, especially of the unearned money, indeed leads to great evil. But a rational desire to keep what you earn is only fair and just.

Somehow, speaking of destructive greed, the progs tend to blame income earners and producers - but they always conveniently omit the fact that the worst type of greed - the destructive, irrational, collective greed is being exhibited by "progressive" pressure groups, especially the leftist unions, who demand that someone else's money be confiscated by the state and redistributed to them. IT IS THAT KIND OF LOVE OF MONEY - other people's money - that leads to much unfairness, as well as sloth, cheating, abuses, drug addictions, the destruction of the family, and other vices of the welfare state.

I think pointing out the greed of the entitlement groups - their covetous lust for OPM (other people's money) might be a good way to convince a fair person in the moral superiority of a conservative/libertarian position.

User avatar
Leninka - it seems we were responding simultaneously to the same issue.

User avatar
I agree very much with the ideas here presented about money...

And might I add, I have observed a few individuals who, though having much wealth, were "poor in spirit", and sought to help as many people as they could because of it. Likewise, there is many a fellow on this earth who, though having no money themselves, constantly lust after and scheme to take it from those who do. So I ask, which type of fellow is truly "in love" with money, and is being "RULED" by it? I say the latter.

User avatar
Red Square wrote:
KorporalJamo wrote:He said money is the root of all evil.

I'll have to disagree here. A more accurate rendering from the original Greek may be: [highlight=#ffff00]"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil." [/highlight]The irrational, destructive love of money, especially of the unearned money, indeed leads to great evil. But a rational desire to keep what you earn is only fair and just.

Somehow, speaking of destructive greed, the progs tend to blame income earners and producers - but they always conveniently omit the fact that the worst type of greed - the destructive, irrational, collective greed is being exhibited by "progressive" pressure groups, especially the leftist unions, who demand that someone else's money be confiscated by the state and redistributed to them. [highlight=#ffff00]IT IS THAT KIND OF LOVE OF MONEY - other people's money - that leads to much unfairness, as well as sloth, cheating, abuses, drug addictions, the destruction of the family, and other vices of the welfare state.[/highlight]

I think pointing out the greed of the entitlement groups - their covetous lust for OPM (other people's money) might be a good way to convince a fair person in the moral superiority of a conservative/libertarian position.

That is an excellent clarification, Red Square.

No one loves other people's money more than we do.
Image

User avatar
I'm glad we agree. To summarize -

OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!

Should we make a bumper sticker with this?

And KorporalJamo - I hope you've taken no offense that we picked on just one line of your otherwise good advice. Sometimes in the heat of battle I may forget to redistribute encouragements to new members equally.

User avatar
And here are some argument points against secular progs - from the man whose songs they like to rub in our faces. He wrote "Imagine no possessions" but 10 years later saw the error of his ways and recanted in this unexpected rant. So if Chapman hadn't killed Lennon, he would have to be liquidated by the Party for the GreaterGood™ and in the name of the Progress of Mankind Humankind.

John Lennon Slams Socialism & Presidential Hero Worship

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/yoC83orA4ys&h ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/yoC83orA4ys&h ... 2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

User avatar
Feeling Entitled to Other People's Money is the Root of All Evil

Coveting Other People's Money is the Root of All Evil

And of course using the word "love"

Love of Other People's Money is the Root of All Evil

Love of Other People's Money is a Progressive's Deepest Love

I'm a Progressive and I Love Spending Other People's Money

I'm a Progressive and No One Loves Spending Other People's Money more that I Do

User avatar
Picture taken by Red Square at the Boston Tea Party on April 13, 2010 and slightly edited to make more sense. These people came to protest the "hate" and "fear mongering" of the Tea Partiers with presumptuous slogans about love. Having met little opposition and animosity, many of these sanctimonious "party crashers" began to spew hatred and whipped themselves into a frenzy of fear mongering. The plump kindly young woman with the pious smile, for instance, waited for Sarah Palin to appear on stage before showing the other side of her sign: "Tina Fey does it better."

Image

User avatar
Red Square wrote:I'm glad we agree. To summarize -

OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!

Should we make a bumper sticker with this?

And KorporalJamo - I hope you've taken no offense that we picked on just one line of your otherwise good advice. Sometimes in the heat of battle I may forget to redistribute encouragements to new members equally.

This is exemplified in the socialist movement, which is the height of greed. These people in our government, using capitalism to gain personal wealth at the same time they're trying to tear it down to satisfy their lust for personal power. "love of money" does lead people down the path of hell.... and the path to government control. Nothing is so bastardized as leftists quoting the Bible to say the government should 'help' people by taking from others to redistribute. Even a 1/2 brain should be able to do some discerning, but so many do not.
Thanks for the pic's and infor Red Square. We have certainly managed to stir up the enemy. At least it's enjoyable when they expose their real hate of all they despise - conservatives and the Constitution, while they support 'rights' of illegals and terrorist.

User avatar
Red Square wrote:I'm glad we agree. To summarize -

OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!

Should we make a bumper sticker with this?

And KorporalJamo - I hope you've taken no offense that we picked on just one line of your otherwise good advice. Sometimes in the heat of battle I may forget to redistribute encouragements to new members equally.
.
I think there should be two types--
.
"Progressive" versions:
"Other People's Money Is Our Salvation"
"Other People's Money-- Root of All Happiness"
.
Tea-Party versions:
"Socialism--Coveting Other People's Money"
"Progressivism-- Coveting Other People's Money"
"Liberalism-- Coveting Other People's Money"
.
More ideas:
ObamaCare-- OPM For You
ObamaMoney-- OPM for You.
ObamaMoney = OPM = Other People's Money
Maybe this image below could be revised/adapted Image -- to say ObamaMoney = OPM = Other People's Money --KOOK

User avatar
That mouthpiece of hate Rush Limburger has said that feminism was created so that unattractive women can wield power. He has also stated that politics is a job opportunity for those who are too ugly to make it in Hollywood.

Next I suppose he'll suggest that Progressivism is just a means for the unintelligent and unambitious to attain (undeserved) wealth.

User avatar
Why the Bible is a Capitalist Manifesto:
The ten commandments:
-- Six days you shall toil and do all your work... (Work ethics)
-- You may not steal (Excessive taxation)
-- You may not covet your neighbour's stuff: His house, his ox, his donkey, his servant or his wife. (Class envy)

User avatar
As quoted in the Bible:

Charity - It is better to give than to receive.

As believed by Progressives:

Socialism - It is better to give and receive other people's money.

User avatar
<off>This post and thread is one of the most touching things I have experienced in a long time. I was quite moved by it. First, the headline put a lump in my throat. When I kept reading, tears welled up in my eyes, further reading of replies brought me to sobs! A much needed release of all the conflicted emotions I have about what is happening in our most beloved country! I suppose you could call it one of those "unintended consequences." I do not want to bring attention to myself by saying this. This is about Czar Czar. I at this point have nothing to add because I agree with all of you. You have said it all, and so much more and better than I could ever say it! I just wanted to post this in support of all of you.

I also have a beloved brother with whom I cannot have a discussion at all about politics. He, sweetly, avoids any discussion about politics with me, because he becomes a ranting fool, and I respond in kind, I have to admit. He tells me not to worry because the baby boomers (him), who are now going to be in power, will take care of everything! Good God! You guys are the one's who helped create this, I want to tell him. What he means is that his generation will make sure everyone gets free stuff. Period. Not to worry. The only successful conversation I had with him, and that was many years ago, was what a "ditto-head" actually is! He actually got it! And sounded "sane" when he did. He's gone down the dark path though. Breaks my heart.

I do have two other brothers who are Conservatives. One of them is a Christian, as am I. And I became one in the privacy of my living room, all alone with my Father, as did my brother.

I was particularly touched by Mrs. Al Czarweary's graphics. They were quite good, and put to shame my whinings about not having Photoshop. That really got me. And, of course everyone's comments top to bottom. All are stunning. I am very grateful to you all. And feel privileged to be in your company. Lovely, lovely people. You make my heart sing!

User avatar
UPDATE:
First off, I think Pammy just summed up alot of the emotions we all feel dealing with friends and loved ones when it comes to disagreeing on what's right and wrong about our country. Heavy stuff, but if we don't do it, it ain't gonna get done.
OK, UPDATE 2.0:
The hilarious conversation with LibProgDem is...STILL GOING. After crushing him with stone-cold logic and sound, reasonable suggestions to all his knee-jerk, emotional, and baseless accusations (and giving myself a serious ego hard-on), by tonight I had finally bored myself with simply fighting against him, I decided to go "prog-on", agree with him wholeheartedly, and offer my services as a Redistributive Anarchist for the cause! Now I'm just waiting to see if his head explodes.

User avatar
Czar Czar wrote:UPDATE:
First off, I think Pammy just summed up alot of the emotions we all feel dealing with friends and loved ones when it comes to disagreeing on what's right and wrong about our country. Heavy stuff, but if we don't do it, it ain't gonna get done.
OK, UPDATE 2.0:
The hilarious conversation with LibProgDem is...STILL GOING. After crushing him with stone-cold logic and sound, reasonable suggestions to all his knee-jerk, emotional, and baseless accusations (and giving myself a serious ego hard-on), by tonight I had finally bored myself with simply fighting against him, I decided to go "prog-on", agree with him wholeheartedly, and offer my services as a Redistributive Anarchist for the cause! Now I'm just waiting to see if his head explodes.
You, my dear Czar Czar, are the epitome of class! <off> I mean this! <on> One of our dear progs in our most infamous dictionary of "neologisms" supplied this word if I remember it correctly: Egotesticle, a guy with a big head and no balls. Does this somehow relate to your thoughts? I hope this helps.

User avatar
[highlight=#000000]
OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!
[/highlight]
Bumper Sticker? Hell, yeah! I'll take one! I'm not into bumper stickers, never have been (well, except for the Obama/Biden one. I had five of them equally spaced on my back bumper). But, this is too hard to resist! I would, howsomever, like it to be "white with a black background" because I have a black car. <off>Now that's what I call "damn racist!"<on> This baby will cover the entire width of my back bumper! Doesn't get cooler than that! I like it!

Howsomever, they are considering banning black cars here in CA. For the environment, of course, and, the greater good!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/c ... 03316.html

Something I have to consider. Yeah, it's a tough call. But this sticker will cover the "dings" I receive on my back bumper on a weekly basis at Walmart. Here in L.A., dings on one's bumper are the tell-all reveal that you are not of the "elite" and must be covered up by any means necessary! In fact, I'll take TWO! With all the torrential rainfall here in L.A., due to global warming, this is an essential part of my emergency disaster kit! (I always include 24 cases of "Smart" Water to ensure my self-esteem.)

<off>Oh yeah, I'd also like a dozen or so of those Tea shirts just to keep me mentally intact (in case of a showdown.)<on>Now where did I put my shovel?

User avatar
Pamalinsky wrote: Egotesticle, a guy with a big head and no balls. Does this somehow relate to your thoughts? I hope this helps.

ImageThat perfectly describes liberals and in particular, barack hussein obama. He needs an imaginary man bag to carry around his super sized imaginary balls. He'd be more suited as CEO of Post's Grape Nuts cereal.

User avatar
Hmmm... Grapenuts. Oh, yea! The perfect nickname for Barry! 'Cuz he (like the cereal) has neither grapes, nor nuts! BRILLIANT Pelloskies! Oh thou Great Chesticled One!

User avatar
Czar Czar wrote:Hmmm... Grapenuts. Oh, yea! The perfect nickname for Barry! 'Cuz he (like the cereal) has neither grapes, nor nuts! BRILLIANT Pelloskies! Oh thou Great Chesticled One!

Comrades,
Every time I restart my computer and go to thepeoplescube.com, I am always offered this post as an option. I love this post. So, today, I went to it.

CzarCzar posted something back in the day that is still relevant today. I love her for that and just might (although I think it's hopeless) create some bumper stickers that say, "OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL." They'll be 4 feet long and enough to hide the dings in your back bumper. Whaddya think? Huh?

User avatar
.
At one time there were only bumper signs.
.
Nice legs Pammie! How old are
.
WAIT A MINUTE...
is that Ivan in your automobile!! We need to talk...
.

Image

User avatar
No, no, no, Comrade Putout, Ya got it all wrong, heh, heh, heh. That's Bonnie and Clyde!
The bumper sign is a dead giveaway! Get it? Dead giveaway! Ha ha ha! (Bronx cheer)

User avatar
After having perused the comments on this post, I have to agree with Leninka. I did think of this but I thought it might be redundant. It's not! It's right on!

Go, Leninka!

Love of Other People's Money is the Root of All Evil - See more at: https://thepeoplescube.com/post197184.html#p197184

User avatar
Image
I'm glad you guys bumped this thread that I missed while in exile... I've been having to deal with more and more hardcore progs lately and these tips are worth a shot. One such prog had her head nearly explode when I asked her, "If you are open-minded to all ideas and believe everyone has a right to live how they want and have that way of life respected by others, why does that not extend to my chosen way of life? Why are you not open-minded toward my decision to practice traditional Christian values within my own home?"

User avatar
Commissar Obamissar V wrote:Image
I'm glad you guys bumped this thread that I missed while in exile... I've been having to deal with more and more hardcore progs lately and these tips are worth a shot. One such prog had her head nearly explode when I asked her, "If you are open-minded to all ideas and believe everyone has a right to live how they want and have that way of life respected by others, why does that not extend to my chosen way of life? Why are you not open-minded toward my decision to practice traditional Christian values within my own home?"

Well, Commissar Obamissar V,

I'm sure you know that there are Christians and, there are christians. The christians are not really Christians, at all. They, like progressives, want to impose their beliefs on everyone. But, the Progressives have convinced them that they (real Christians) are extremists who wish to foist their "beliefs" upon all of us. Real Christians don't.

If you are really a Christian, you know this can't be done. You can't force anyone to believe anything. They have to come upon it by themselves.

Barry Goldwater, a true conservative knew this and talked about it.

Here's a link:

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Barry+Goldwater&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

I'm not sure this is best link to illustrate what Barry was talking about because I was denied entry to other posts I thought were appropriate.

User avatar
Pamalinsky wrote:
I'm sure you know that there are Christians and, there are christians. The christians are not really Christians, at all. They, like progressives, want to impose their beliefs on everyone. But, the Progressives have convinced them that they (real Christians) are extremists who wish to foist their "beliefs" upon all of us. Real Christians don't.

If you are really a Christian, you know this can't be done. You can't force anyone to believe anything. They have to come upon it by themselves.
Image Speaking of which Comrade Pamalinsky, Did you hear that Rush is advertising Hillsdale College's new free online course on the works of C. S. Lewis, including that wonderful book you recommended to me, "Mere Christianity"?

P.S. It was so refreshing to learn that conservative punks like me can continue to listen to punk-rock and still get to heaven!

User avatar
<off>
Yes, Comrade Punk, I am aware of it. Currently I'm grooving on the Churchill series. What a mensch, Churchill. C.S. is up next! I look forward to it! Thanks.

User avatar
Pamalinsky wrote:
Well, Commissar Obamissar V,

I'm sure you know that there are Christians and, there are christians. The christians are not really Christians, at all. They, like progressives, want to impose their beliefs on everyone. But, the Progressives have convinced them that they (real Christians) are extremists who wish to foist their "beliefs" upon all of us. Real Christians don't.

If you are really a Christian, you know this can't be done. You can't force anyone to believe anything. They have to come upon it by themselves.

Barry Goldwater, a true conservative knew this and talked about it.

Here's a link:

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Barry+Goldwater&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

I'm not sure this is best link to illustrate what Barry was talking about because I was denied entry to other posts I thought were appropriate.

Comrade Pamalinsky,

So insightful and so true. I'm glad you invoked Comrade Goldwater and his, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass," among other things. Not only do people have to come upon it themselves, but they should be helped along because they are attracted to what they see in those who have already made that decision.

Indeed, Christians would love for nothing more than the whole world to accept the love of Christ and live as disciples, but only by their own free will and choice. Those who choose otherwise should be loved and respected and shown that Christianity is about a love of God and seeking to be more like His son by the modeling of this way of life by His followers. A shame it is that more people think of what "christians" are against than what Christians are for. People think of what they have to give up rather than what they would gain. Force, shunning, guilt, and politics should never be part of the process. Now Christians have to show how they're different from "christians" in addition to the world.

There is the concept of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The New Covenant means that a legalistic approach to religion is not only no longer required, but is contrary to the point. Adherence to any sort of religious law was removed as a requirement. Accepting Christ and building a relationship with God is the new goal. Through this, one is changed from the inside by the Holy Spirit to want to do things pleasing to God because they value God over the demands of the world. Those things that seemed attractive before are replaced by new desires and one does not feel they are "missing out." But Jesus never commanded His disciples to infiltrate the government and set up a theocratic state. Never did He say that all must be forced to follow His teachings. Instead, one should seek to follow His ways out of belief that living the life God intended is the surest way to have the best and most meaningful life. Imperfect humans will always miss the mark, but should repent (turn away from and go another direction) when they do and strive to be better. Forcing others to subscribe to orthodoxy is incompatible.

Nothing about condemning those who don't. Nothing about forcing non-believers to live the way you want them to live. What is modeled throughout the New Testament, and especially Acts by the apostles, is that God pursues His children as a shepherd with 100 sheep leaves the 99 to go after the missing 1. He uses those He has to model His love and be living evidence of His truth so others would freely decide to follow Him. That's why Jesus sought out those society had shunned and showed them His love. If that's how tax collectors, adulterers, and even the leader of purges against Christians were treated, I don't understand how "christians" think they should cast out homosexuals, abortion advocates, people who have sex outside of marriage, etc. Vengeance belongs to God and God alone.

Not only do these "christians" drive away non-believers, but they drive away believers as well. There are a few people in my inner circle who can't understand my ever-increasing joy because they were so hurt and had such negative experiences in the church as children. They couldn't reconcile messages of shame and hate with their own thoughts of love/freedom/happiness so they left the church and became Das Kapital-thumping progressives. They recoil from the name of God as though they were seeing a hummer belching carbon into the atmosphere. Their churches tried to indoctrinate them with a certain set of rules, so they rejected it all and clung to a new set of equally oppressive rules simply because the rules of progressiveness were different from the rules of the church and allowed them to do whatever they want with no feelings of shame. However, they miss the irony that what they're in now is just as oppressive and forceful, probably because they're now the ones doing the forcing.

One who doesn't deeply believe in the foundation behind a principle cannot be expected to follow it. My friends rejected principles because they did not understand God's love and were focused only on rules. This can be seen throughout life. Employees are more likely to do what a manager wants them to do if that manager explains her thoughts and the reasons she'd like them done rather than just ordering their accomplishment. Children are more likely to not climb on the counters if their parents explain how they could be hurt rather than just ordering them not to. That which is forbidden develops a mystique while that which is explained can be understood. It's the difference between following an order or doing something because you agree it makes sense.

No real Christian wants to live in a theocracy, especially not one run by "christians."

User avatar
<off>

Commissar Obamissar V,

Amen.

I'd like to refer you to an earlier post by Commissar Uberdave regarding this subject. There you will find my testimonial, and others'.

https://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/is-there-really-a-god-t16600.html


 
POST REPLY