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!
... No, thinking we're so "special" is pride, and pride comes before a fall. You then overlook all your own shortcomings, and seek to blame everyone else for your problems. So they never improve, and that's when those problems pull you down. But of course, you go down still pointing fingers at everyone else. And again, beliving you are better is not what God ever encourages for His people, but rather more the opposite.
Well, Israel thought they were the best nation and how many times were they invaded?
What is your proof that God specifically blessed the nation? You give all these quotes showing they believed in God, and that He provided for them. That shows that they were at least culturally Christian. It does not show that they all truly were, and you admitted this. So then what is the basis of the belief He blessed them, and not some nonChristian nation, like in the mid- and far east? Only because they mentioned His name? Hence; I say He is not obligated to do so for that reason. He may have had specific rewards and punishments for obedience/disobedience in the OT, but that was then. If you take the receiving of all this land and other material resources as the ultimate "blessing", then you are just as materialistic as the dreaded Marxists, and everyone else trusting in land and money.You're still not getting it! I haven't said God was "obligated" to favor us. I've just said that He has blessed this nation greatly because He wanted to do so. It's very simple, EricB!
Don't quibble on technical difference between "war" and "crime". An act of hate is an act of hate, no matter what scale it is on!There's a big difference in criminal acts and acts of war. The first requires a law enforcement response but the second requires a military response. I know a lot of people have trouble sorting these out.
So they said they had God's providence. So did Calvin himself when he got hold of Michael Servetus. And that is how this "providence" concept would almost always end up being used afterward. It is God helping us out in our wars and conquests. We don't need a reason (like from Scripture) why God would be working specially with some nation long after His plan with Israel is over. He's just on our side, because we say so!It's not some tale I've made up in my life time, EricB! Read the preponderance of statements recorded during the founding of the nation - like the several examples I've posted in this thread - and there you will find the proof if you're open to it.
Well, you're not being thankful, right now, when dealing with the current state of the nation. Your side is complaining louder than anyone else.Baloney, EricB, pure baloney!
Now you're playing semantics. Look at your next statement, below; it's the nation itself that is "special", not just the blessings of providence! And the nation consists of its people.You've repeated this lie so many times now that you believe it!
I've not said we are "special" people above others - I've said we've been "especially" blessed through God's providence above others. We do have a "special" duty to protect, defend, preserve, and restore that which we were given.
You're so determined to make your point that you're not being truthful about what I've written.
That's ridiculous! People can recognize the land they live in as worth defending (as their own interests are at stake) without having to believe the nation is "special", or that God is behind it, or that their nation has never done any serious wrong. You and others who repeat this stuff are just filtering everything through your collective self-pride. There are other nations that do not hold a philosophy like that, and they still defend themselves. Just where do we get this stuff from?What would happen to America if those who believe there's nothing special about this nation make it so?
What would happen if they convince the rest that God has not greatly blessed us from our founding to this day?
Who would be willing to protect and defend such a worthless cause? Who would be willing to die for this country? Who would want to leave their homeland behind to come here for greater liberty and better opportunity? Who would give thanks to God for what He has done and pray that He continue to sustain us.
Could it be that men and women would refuse to risk peril to defend their homeland? Could it be that people we start to leave this land rather than want to come to it?
What a foolish mistake that would be for us and our descendants! What a terrible tragedy it would be to cast away all that was so painfully gained out of sheer ignorance of history and the basis for it.
I have no use for the empty minded thinking that promotes such concepts or even stands by idle while listening to it!
So God punishes us for not maintaining this high view of ourselves as a nation? (Didn't you just deny something to that effect?) I guess humility comes before a fall!Could it not ultimately cease to be? Could it be that God would decide withdraw his sustaining blessings and permit others to rule over us?
What is your proof that God specifically blessed the nation? You give all these quotes showing they believed in God, and that He provided for them. That shows that they were at least culturally Christian. It does not show that they all truly were, and you admitted this. So then what is the basis of the belief He blessed them, and not some nonChristian nation, like in the mid- and far east? Only because they mentioned His name? Hence; I say He is not obligated to do so for that reason. He may have had specific rewards and punishments for obedience/disobedience in the OT, but that was then. If you take the receiving of all this land and other material resources as the ultimate "blessing", then you are just as materialistic as the dreaded Marxists, and everyone else trusting in land and money. ...
... Don't quibble on technical difference between "war" and "crime". An act of hate is an act of hate, no matter what scale it is on! ...
... Now you're playing semantics. Look at your next statement, below; it's the nation itself that is "special", not just the blessings of providence! And the nation consists of its people.
That's ridiculous! People can recognize the land they live in as worth defending (as their own interests are at stake) without having to believe the nation is "special", or that God is behind it, or that their nation has never done any serious wrong. You and others who repeat this stuff are just filtering everything through your collective self-pride. There are other nations that do not hold a philosophy like that, and they still defend themselves. Just where do we get this stuff from?
You believe the nation has been sold out to godless socialists and immorality. Do you believe it is still worth defending?
So God punishes us for not maintaining this high view of ourselves as a nation? (Didn't you just deny something to that effect?) I guess humility comes before a fall!
I should also point out, that in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, the Pharisee doesn't actually credit himself for anything:
Notice; "I thank YOU, Lord that I am not as other men...or even as this publican". (Lk 18:11) So even crediting God does not prevent it from being self-righteousness!
I did read that stuff you posted, and I see people who thought they were benefitting from God's "providence". So that proves your point that they believed that way, which I never questioned. But that's all it proves. It doesn't prove that their claim was true. Only God can affirm that. Problem is, scriptural canon does not run that far ahead in time.You have to read it and comprehend it, EricB. I can't do either for you. My time is limited to spend on such an arduous an perhaps impossible task.
But for our discussion, on who the "enemies" of the nation are, whether it is some foreign attacker waging grand scale "war", or some home grown attacker, comitting a "crime", they are nevertheless still enemies, when they attack the nation's infrastructure, and kill innocent civilians. This has nothing to do with war vs "law enforcement" on the government's part. We're talking about people attacking the government, and taking citizens out with it in the process.Like I said: A lot of people - including many in the present administration - don't know the difference between law enforcement and war. They don't know which tool should be used for which offensive. There is a big difference!
You deny saying we are "special people", but then you say the nation is special, which insinuates the same thing.You're all over the place with your comments and don't seem to understand anything I've written. You just want to argue about every little point. You twist some ridiculous meanings out nearly every message being communicated. What can be said to such things? There's a phrase for it but I probably shouldn't use it here.
I find all this an excellent but perhaps dangerous test of patience and tolerance. The best part is you've caused me to re-read many of my best resources and that strengthens my resolve even more.
I did read that stuff you posted, and I see people who thought they were benefitting from God's "providence". So that proves your point that they believed that way, which I never questioned. But that's all it proves. It doesn't prove that their claim was true. Only God can affirm that. Problem is, scriptural canon does not run that far ahead in time.
But for our discussion, on who the "enemies" of the nation are, whether it is some foreign attacker waging grand scale "war", or some home grown attacker, comitting a "crime", they are nevertheless still enemies, when they attack the nation's infrastructure, and kill innocent civilians. This has nothing to do with war vs "law enforcement" on the government's part. We're talking about people attacking the government, and taking citizens out with it in the process.
You constantly claim [next] I'm misconstruing your statements, but again, you're taking us way off the point here.
You deny saying we are "special people", but then you say the nation is special, which insinuates the same thing.
Then, you claim if we don't believe it is special, no one will bother defending it. Which I say is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
So now, all you can do is continue claiming I'm not understanding you, and "arguing every point". I think the problem is, you (and many others with you) do not understand your own ideology. You snatch it up, and hold to it, because it sounds nice, but you don't see its implications, and in places, its code language. So when someone comes and reflects this back to you, you react, thinking what you've said has been twisted, or too many points have been argued. But one needs to focus on points, to get to the root of it. It is not wise to just take things by how they look/sound on the surface. And that's what has been going on in politics, a lot.
No, what I fail to do is add to scripture some new revelation that is well beyond its time frame.They made the claim based on the obvious reality of the events that took place then and since. It is self proving by what has happened. The difference between them and many of us today is that they knew the source of their blessings whereas today many don't even recognize the blessings much less the source. If you fail to acknowledge God's hand in what took place then you leave it to chance or to human effort or something else. If you fail to acknowledge the great significance of what took place then you make God's work out to be insignificant and unworthy of our enduring praise.
So I guess, just like the founders get to dictate that their actions were divinely sanctioned, I guess you get to dictate that I'm misconstruing you, even though I'm the one pointing out what your ideology is pointing to.You haven't stopped doing it since the very first response so, yes, I have to keep pointing it out! It's either that or concede or ignore. Ignore is probably the best option at this point!
In other words, your character gets to shine in all of this, and you can now broadcast that to us as well (this is the second time you uttered that "test of patience and tolerance" statement). No; I think there's a lot more to it than that. I think it's more about the ego. Your ideology seems to be all about having one's cake and eating it too.On the other hand, it's a test of patience and tolerance and an opportunity to shed light on all the issues for both you and the rest of the readers on a topic about which I am passionate.
And recall the Pharisee and Publican example I gave (I tacked it on the last response because I had forgotten it from before, and I knew I should have waited until now).I deny saying it because I did not say it. That's the truth you will not acknowledge. It is not saying the same thing. It is not non-sequitur! The nation is great because of God's blessings. His blessings are never dependent upon the recipient's worthiness. If it were then both His common grace and saving grace would be received by none at all.
In several of the quotations I provided you can discern, if you wanted to do, the difference and even the caution expressed by the patriots of the revolutionary time against making such an assumption. They understood it and left us a written record of that understanding.
On the personal front, I have already very specifically acknowledged my own sinfulness and unworthiness for any of the blessings I have. I know I'm not inherently any more righteous or unrighteous than any other human being. I inherited Adam's sin nature and have proven it by my thoughts and deeds.
And there goes that typical tossing it up to God's unsearchableness when you have no other proof. You can't even provide a scripture to back this up [the "temporal" part of it, that is; at least in the broader Calvinist soteriological debate, there are scriptures they can use], but you just know this stuff, and everyone else is supposed to just believe it without question.Americans have been blessed because God wanted to do so for reasons that please Him.
But, for reasons that are mysterious to the mind of man but clear the the mind of God, He did bestow His saving grace on me and also his temporal grace on me.
You don't have to. It's still a collective pride. But making it collective does not make it any better before God.I consider myself no better of a human being than, for example, members of my family and friends that live in foreign countries today.
Again; you seem to be very unhappy about the way things are, or how you fear they are becoming. Again, do you still feel "blessed" in this increasingly "socialist" nation where all your hard earned money is being wasted on some bunch of lazy moochers?Yet I'm very certain that I am more blessed to live here in America they where they do. I haven't seen your confession.
I didn't say the code language was in what you said, or even what you've quoted. I said, it's in the whole ideology, which I had said, you yourself do not seem to fully understand, yet you adopt it, and then get defensive and throw out accusations of twisting when someone calls out its underlying premises. Like, people weren't aware that that "Grasshopper" story was a coded reference to race. People just re-contextualized it to their own current gripes about the liberals; didn't even know where it came from, and then it had been edited at that, to to remove some of the racial references.There's no "code language" involved in what I've said or what I've quoted. It's just plain simple words that any reasonable man with a basic aptitude in English can comprehend.
Just because liberals have overused the concepts of "equality" or relativity doesn't mean that they are always wrong, and the notion of "better/worse" systems now becomes some new divine revelation.There have always been efforts such as you practice that attempt to bring every system - religious, economic, and political - down to the lowest common denominator so that the lie can be equated to the truth or the best can be equated to the worst. The object - intentional or unwitting - is to destroy what's in place so that it can be replaced with a preferred system. It might be Islam for Christianity, socialism for capitalism, or tyranny for liberty but it starts with tearing down one by spreading doubt about its validity, its source, its superiority, or some other key attribute. Such approaches are very dangerous! Men who are serious about their beliefs and their nation will always view such talk with great skepticism and challenge such words when presented with them.
You're infusing a lot of other stuff into this, which I have never commented on. I have said nothing about which kind of trials different attackers should get. I can't say much, as I have not read up on both sides of the issue, but I myself assumed 9-11 attackers should have a military tribunal. I don't remember the exact reason for doing otherwise. So those gripes about Obama's decisions say nothing to me.There's a big difference in both the acts and the necessary response. When you don't understand that you get weird ideas like people who think terrorists should be tried in civil courts verses military tribunals and that unlawful combatants have the same "rights" as ordinary criminals or even lawful combatants. You get people trying to equate the Oklahoma City bombing to the 9/11 bombing. There certainly could come a point at which a truly organized rebellion would change from a criminal act to an act of sedition or war. At some point a military response could become necessary. But the actions you mentioned haven't crossed that line and remain law enforcement problems. If they did cross the line then the rules should change and so should the "rights" of the perpetrators.
In other words, your character gets to shine in all of this, and you can now broadcast that to us as well (this is the second time you uttered that "test of patience and tolerance" statement). No; I think there's a lot more to it than that. I think it's more about the ego. Your ideology seems to be all about having one's cake and eating it too.
And I hope your passions are for Christ, before national pride. I don't care which country you are from; they are not one and the same!
Again, the Pharisee did not stake his righeousness on his "worthiness" either. And it likely wasn't just his own individual righteousness he was thinking of either. They thought of themselves as a nation, as "blessed" by God, over others. So he said "thank YOU, Lord, that I am not as these other men". That would easily fit "thank You, Lord, that I am not as these ungodly liberals and socialists". "Thank You, Lord, that you have blessed me so that I am not as these lazy mooching grasshoppers". "Thank You Lord, I am not as these heathen barbarians, whose land you have given us". And on, and on it can continue.
Don't you know that talk is cheap? Or at least, men's talk. Men can say anything, including crediting God for their actions, or other favorable conditions. You're giving us a lot of what men say, backed by "the reality of the situation", (which is really their retrospective interpretations of it); and none of what God actually says.
And there goes that typical tossing it up to God's unsearchableness when you have no other proof. You can't even provide a scripture to back this up [the "temporal" part of it, that is; at least in the broader Calvinist soteriological debate, there are scriptures they can use], but you just know this stuff, and everyone else is supposed to just believe it without question.
Again; you seem to be very unhappy about the way things are, or how you fear they are becoming. Again, do you still feel "blessed" in this increasingly "socialist" nation where all your hard earned money is being wasted on some bunch of lazy moochers?
I didn't say the code language was in what you said, or even what you've quoted. I said, it's in the whole ideology, which I had said, you yourself do not seem to fully understand, yet you adopt it, and then get defensive and throw out accusations of twisting when someone calls out its underlying premises. Like, people weren't aware that that "Grasshopper" story was a coded reference to race. People just re-contextualized it to their own current gripes about the liberals; didn't even know where it came from, and then it had been edited at that, to to remove some of the racial references.