Where is your great contribution to this thread of whine?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How does one side have all the truth?
- Thread starter Eric B
- Start date
Where is your great contribution to this thread of whine?
Robert Snow
New Member
What's yours?
There are others who can't seem to recognize that, although man if fundamentally corrupt and left to himself will tend towards sinfulness, there have been periods and places in history where society was established and maintained much more centered upon the Lord. They can not understand that, while man is evil by nature, there is still right and wrong in all things and neither can compromise with the other to preserve itself.
Mine was to illustrate his point that one said has all the truth, and the truth is that he was whining.
Well, I did ask in there what you all realistically wanted. I don't see your side providing a solution either; just blaming everyone you don't agree with.
I did mention that I am more into making observations than necessarily implementing anything. I see error on both sides, and yet one side is simply louder in proclaiming it is completely right, and meanwhile, nothing is being accomplished anywhere, and I think it's the fingerpointing (both ways) that is blocking any solution from being more readily found by those who might be more oriented to implement something.
:applause:
Not necesarily. There is what Christ referred to as "whited sepulchres", and this was no less than God's people of the nation of Israel he was referring to. In many ways, much of "Christian culture" that sprang up afterward copied their attitude (except for not rejecting Christ), and even went further than them in thinking the outward morality they created proved them righteous (and negated the evils that existed). Nobody is justified by being "better" than anyone else, because as you said, man is fundamentally corrupt, and that, even when God is leading them! But that's a whole other argument that we have been through before.
So I don't want to know the truth now. And this seems to be about the comparison of conservative behavior to the liberals.
So ironic, as I suddenly remembered that signature of yours after I posted this morning, for that is the epitome of what I'm talking about. Now tell me that doesn't prove being "just as vicious", as well as your #2 argument example, with flying colors!
So just like I was asking, why is this "whining", but the multiple threads your side creates complaining about every move of Obama and the liberals, and how they are all out to get you, they're taking all your money, and you're so slighted compared to these new favored groups, etc. not "whining"?
I'm posing some simple questions (to try to understand how you think about these things), and you just continue with more of the same.
OK, I had never heard that side of the argument before (abortion). I had never heard abortion mentioned in conjunction with it. The dispute people kept mentioning was it favoring "the poor", who are not really poor, and not entitled to health care.
Just curious; since people are just reacting kneejerk to that; have taxes been raised for this already, or is it that everyone fears they will be?
I know they're talking about ending the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, but that's the only change in taxes I've heard of. (Or is that what everyone is up in arms about?)
It wasn't so much to support this particular point; just something I found that I though said a lot of good things. I myself wasn't talking only about Christians, but rather the Right in general, and it is related, as the issue is about the truthfulness of either side.
I've also been meaning to point to Michael Horton's Beyond Culture Wars as an excellent treatment of the whole right vs left issue in conjunction with Christians' attitudes in politics.
And there it is.
You pretended to start a discussion about "truthfulness on either side" but your true topic is "the Right in general".
Thank you for finally giving us that particular bit of truthfulness.
From my experience...
If you don't agree with the right, then they are likely to label you as a socialist or un-American. You're just not American enough. Or you don't really believe in the Constitution.
If you don't agree with the left, then they are likely to label you as narrow minded, ignorant, and bigoted. If you were just smart enough, then you would agree with them.
As brothers & sisters, if we have room to disagree on theological issues (within reason), then we certainly have room to disagree on political issues (within reason). Seems like there should a lot more talking than ranting, with Christians leading the way.
If you don't agree with the right, then they are likely to label you as a socialist or un-American. You're just not American enough. Or you don't really believe in the Constitution.
If you don't agree with the left, then they are likely to label you as narrow minded, ignorant, and bigoted. If you were just smart enough, then you would agree with them.
As brothers & sisters, if we have room to disagree on theological issues (within reason), then we certainly have room to disagree on political issues (within reason). Seems like there should a lot more talking than ranting, with Christians leading the way.
poncho
Well-Known Member
It's called the Hegelian Dialectic.
Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
So which side are you on?
Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
So which side are you on?
poncho
Well-Known Member
LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITES
The illusion of opposites has been a dominant part of the world's political landscape for over a century and it has been the primary reason for the advance of collectivism during that time. In the epic struggles of World War II, millions of patriotic citizens within the combatant nations passionately supported their leaders, believing they were defending against an evil empire. Russians fought for Communism; Germans fought for Nazism; Italians fought for Fascism. Yet, these were merely variants of the underlying ideology, called collectivism, that was common to them all.
Americans, of course, were horrified by such political doctrines and fought, instead, for Democracy. They did not realize that, while that word filled their heads with visions of freedom and justice for all, their leaders had another definition as they quietly converted the United States into a collectivist regime incredibly similar to the ones against which they fought. The contest was never about ideology. It was always about who would be the victor and who would be the vanquished; who would emerge from the war with world power; who would control the natural resources; who would create the new boundaries; who would judge and who would hang.
SOURCE
Which side are you on after reading the article?
The illusion of opposites has been a dominant part of the world's political landscape for over a century and it has been the primary reason for the advance of collectivism during that time. In the epic struggles of World War II, millions of patriotic citizens within the combatant nations passionately supported their leaders, believing they were defending against an evil empire. Russians fought for Communism; Germans fought for Nazism; Italians fought for Fascism. Yet, these were merely variants of the underlying ideology, called collectivism, that was common to them all.
Americans, of course, were horrified by such political doctrines and fought, instead, for Democracy. They did not realize that, while that word filled their heads with visions of freedom and justice for all, their leaders had another definition as they quietly converted the United States into a collectivist regime incredibly similar to the ones against which they fought. The contest was never about ideology. It was always about who would be the victor and who would be the vanquished; who would emerge from the war with world power; who would control the natural resources; who would create the new boundaries; who would judge and who would hang.
SOURCE
Which side are you on after reading the article?
Right!
It's been said that the spectrum is more a circle than a line. The further you go either way, you eventually arrive at the same point on the far side.
The spectrum has also been made into a 2D graph of right and left, with down as libertarian and up as authoritarian. (e.g. Politopia and Political Compass quizzes). The circle can be plotted on this graph, with the upper part of the circle in the far upper reaches of authoritarianism.
Both sides start out advocating some ideal of "freedom". Like freedom from financial control on one side or freedom from religion on the other. But in advocating the ideal, there will come a time when it must be enforced against opposition, and that's when it becomes more authoritarian and like the furthest extreme of the other side.
Just curious, are you Libertarian? (I know Ken is the one big libertarian around here).
It's been said that the spectrum is more a circle than a line. The further you go either way, you eventually arrive at the same point on the far side.
The spectrum has also been made into a 2D graph of right and left, with down as libertarian and up as authoritarian. (e.g. Politopia and Political Compass quizzes). The circle can be plotted on this graph, with the upper part of the circle in the far upper reaches of authoritarianism.
Both sides start out advocating some ideal of "freedom". Like freedom from financial control on one side or freedom from religion on the other. But in advocating the ideal, there will come a time when it must be enforced against opposition, and that's when it becomes more authoritarian and like the furthest extreme of the other side.
Just curious, are you Libertarian? (I know Ken is the one big libertarian around here).
poncho
Well-Known Member
Let's just say I find myself in the extreme minority around here most days.
"Perhaps I am too quick to judge Lakoff as an illusionist, for that implies he is a willing agent of the enemies of freedom. It is entirely possible that he has not yet considered all the ramifications of this issue. It is possible that he has never heard individualism advocated and defended. Without that, he likely would consider it to be the creed of selfishness and ignorance. With that view, collectivism would be the only reasonable option, and he would have to choose between the Left and Right manifestations of it." LINK
Which side are you on now?
Last edited by a moderator:
The fact that you don't see the blame game being used in both directions once again tells me you are a liberal. Blinded by your own ideology.
Liberals believe everything is relative, even the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is an absolute right and everything else is wrong. Our obligation is to align with the truth - God's truth - and stand firm to it. Liberalism encourages compromise and plays the "Devil's advocate" on all issues. There's a reason it carries that name!
Last edited by a moderator:
Where did I ever say the blame game wasn't being used in both directions?
I do generally give the nod to Poncho's links, which point out that both sides do the same things, and the Beyond the Culture Wars book I mentioned also I liked a lot because it showed how both sides do the same thing.
You're the one who seems blinded by ideology, as your responses are always like this, just slapping a label without seeing seeing everything that is being said. I notice, I'm always having to ask "where did I ever...?"
And that's one of my main points. Why do you all do stuff like this? Especially considering you're the ones always talking so much about "absolute truth". It seems what you're calling 'truth' is very skewed, because again, you do not even see all that is said, so how can you even know what "truth" is from error? It seems to be "whatever I like; and goes along with my sense of how things should be; that's absolute truth". And you wonder why people don't accept that?
If we're talking about God's word, then that's right.
In issues like politics, there do at times touch upon moral issues (abortion, homosexuality, etc) where there is absolute truth. But all the stuff you guys have been complaining about lately (mainly economics, with God scarcely even mentioned most of the time!), then why do you think YOUR views are absolute truth?
Why do you think you have grasped this "truth" more than anyone else (who therefore must be "liberal")?
(And keep in mind, conservatives are just as much "fallen men" as liberals, so have the same tendency to skew things in their favor, as we see above. They just use two different means to do it; either denying truth, or claiming to have a monopoly on it).
poncho
Well-Known Member
Conservatives and liberals alike both think their brand of collectivism is the way to go.
So of course there are going to be heated arguments and name calling among the two collectivist camps. The plain truth is my very good friend Eric B that neither side sees or understands or even cares to understand the truth yet. Today it's all about gaining enough political power to force the other side into submission.
What is truth? Collectivism doesn't benefit mankind. Never has, never will. But it does benefit the power elite who are above government. It benefits them to keep us divided and arguing amongst ourselves. That's why there are so few good solutions today. Most are based on a false premise.
Individualism is what made this country great and collectivism is what's putting it in the trash heap. Yet both sides want to see their brand of collectivism win over the other's.
Once upon a time it was individualism that made this nation different from any other but now that we've adopted collectivism we're the same as the rest.
“Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” -- Robert A Heinlein
What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:
1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.
These are the core principles held by collectivists in their quest to remold mankind to their hearts desire. The main disagreement among them is over how those principles should be applied. They do not realize that it's not the application of those principles, but the principles themselves that cause injustice, scarcity, and freedom's demise. History has already shown this truth in the form of despotism under Nazism (the so-called Right) and Communism (the so-called Left). It is sad that intelligent people with knowledge of this history still cling to the myth that they are opposites when it is so clear they are merely different manifestations of the same ideology. source
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it becomes more a matter of alignment. It seems to me that liberals more often align with things that are clearly against God's word. It reveals the foundation of their beliefs to be very weak and shows them to have a lack of wisdom in all things. But this is not a judgment of individuals - like you or me - who are all fallen and corrupt regardless whether we are liberal or conservative. It is, however, a judgment of ideology whereby liberalism is much farther misaligned with God's word than conservatism. In the present political arena I find few true conservatives but it is easy to spot die-hard liberals. If we argue that no one can make the judgment or the claim that their ideology is better than another then we concede that all are equally correct because, by this argument, no one has the truth. That is Satan's tactic for discrediting the truth. The first step is to make the lie equal to the truth. That is how he deceived Eve. Today's liberalism attempts the same tactic by first trying to make all things - ideologies, gods, religions, lifestyles, sexes, everything - equal and just as truthful as another. The measure of truth becomes man's thoughts - not God's thoughts. Politics and economics are not exempt for God's domain. He is sovereign over all things at all times. Therefore, there exists God's truth in these things just as it does in those perhaps a bit more clearly stated. Man will attempt to draw a line that divides the things of God from the things of man and hence comes the term "secular" whereby we find excuse to support the things of man rather than seeking to find God's truth in handling those things as well.
Where the problem is occurring here is the failure to realize that "better" has no place in God's standard. You're either up to par with Him, or it's all filthy rags. So all of man falls there. Some may try to align themselves with God more than others, but their standing before Him will ultimately be by grace; not by being better than someone else.
It's those speaking of "better" who actually start the 'relativity'/'man's measure of truth' ball rolling, for what is both "better/worse" and "relativity" but a comparison. Better/worse ARE relative, and God is not on that scale, as merely "better" than man or Satan. Think about it! Only men can claim to be better or worse than one another, so that right there is man's measure (and who's always introducing it into the equation?!)
So "comparing themselves among themselves" (2 Cor.10:12), they have right there already moved from God's standards, and effectively set their own beliefs or systems up as the [temporal] standard. (At least as far as it looks from an observer. Some may happen to correspond with some of God's standards, but not all). Satan also tries to relativize truth my making people think they have more of it, through self-righteousness.
Again, God is hardly even mentioned in many of these discussions, and simply saying "He's sovereign, so God's truth does exist here" is no substitute for being able to show/prove (not just assert, or call the other side blind) that one's position is in fact that truth.
On the other hand, the liberals all know that you're just as human as they are, so they play the card dealt and reasonably ask, what makes you any better? Most don't know the Gospel, so they don't know any difference. It's the other side that should know better, but insists on playing this human comparison game.
And again, much of the debate here seems to be more about self-interest (taxes, what we want from government, how we hate the people in office, etc) than what God actually says about things.
It's those speaking of "better" who actually start the 'relativity'/'man's measure of truth' ball rolling, for what is both "better/worse" and "relativity" but a comparison. Better/worse ARE relative, and God is not on that scale, as merely "better" than man or Satan. Think about it! Only men can claim to be better or worse than one another, so that right there is man's measure (and who's always introducing it into the equation?!)
So "comparing themselves among themselves" (2 Cor.10:12), they have right there already moved from God's standards, and effectively set their own beliefs or systems up as the [temporal] standard. (At least as far as it looks from an observer. Some may happen to correspond with some of God's standards, but not all). Satan also tries to relativize truth my making people think they have more of it, through self-righteousness.
Again, God is hardly even mentioned in many of these discussions, and simply saying "He's sovereign, so God's truth does exist here" is no substitute for being able to show/prove (not just assert, or call the other side blind) that one's position is in fact that truth.
On the other hand, the liberals all know that you're just as human as they are, so they play the card dealt and reasonably ask, what makes you any better? Most don't know the Gospel, so they don't know any difference. It's the other side that should know better, but insists on playing this human comparison game.
And again, much of the debate here seems to be more about self-interest (taxes, what we want from government, how we hate the people in office, etc) than what God actually says about things.