moderates

[Yeshua1]

There is no such thing as a Christian nation or an atheist nation. There are nations in which the majority proclaim themselves to be Christian but many or most of them are not.

[Mat 7:22 KJV] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[Mat 7:23 KJV] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Why should we enacts laws to observe that are known sins against the Lord?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Oh, for the record. In my OP, I didn't mean that I believe the right wing as a whole is hateful. But some on this forum certainly come across as such

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Reynolds]

That matches up with what I learned in history class, yes. It also doesn't contradict the article I shared.
So I'm not seeing where your original claim that we were intended to be a direct democracy fits in.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

I never said we were intended or were a direct democracy. I said the will of the people ruled. The will, over time, does rule. It rules through elections and even amendment to the COTUS, if the will remains constant long enough. We are ruled by the will of the people, not the whim of the people.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I never said we were intended or were a direct democracy. I said the will of the people ruled. The will, over time, does rule. It rules through elections and even amendment to the COTUS.

Ok.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[777]

There is no such thing as a Christian nation or an atheist nation. .

I see it's no better, Wrong again:

State atheism - Wikipedia

2020 North Korea, for example, is an atheist state. State-sanctioned atheism is a tenet of Marxism.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There is no such thing as a Christian nation or an atheist nation.

I see it's no better, Wrong again:
State atheism - Wikipedia
2020 North Korea, for example, is an atheist state. State-sanctioned atheism is a tenet of Marxism.

I have no handy reference for it, but have read that Albania went so far as to eliminate "God" from dictionaries. They were once a proudly militantly atheist state.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I never said we were intended or were a direct democracy. I said the will of the people ruled. The will, over time, does rule. It rules through elections and even amendment to the COTUS, if the will remains constant long enough. We are ruled by the will of the people, not the whim of the people.

This is correct, but thankfully not as a majority of the national population, but rather as a majority based on states and population. Otherwise, a few large states could easily dominate all the others. Of course there never would have been a union had that been allowed.

 

[Benjamin]

I highly doubt Ecclesiastes 10 is referring to today's politics.

I would hope so, meaning that you’d feel that way, because otherwise you’d be undeniably directly opposing biblical wisdom. Yes, the verse was used as a joke, but do you think the common meanings as per the biblical example, the meanings of the right hand being the “common instrument of action” as compared to the left has completely vanished? I don’t think so. The political Right today upholds that a man should take action and work for his own money, be able to keep it and spend it as he sees fit.

If the common meaning did vanish, where did all the basic cultural understanding regarding right-left terminology, the meanings behind it and the reasoning which distinguished between the two go since the writing of the Bible? I think it was in use then and it’s still in use.

As a young man my boss called me his right-hand man. I had to think about that, but I understood it to mean that I was the one that got the work done that was important to the boss. That phrase, “right-hand man”, commonly meant something just like the phrase, “two left-hands or feet”, expresses common meanings of clumsiness. I can’t think of a situation where the right isn’t looked upon as positive over the left whenever a comparison is made.

Most people are more coordinated with their right hand because they are right-handed and use it more, but even left-handed people are generally more ambidextrous with using their less dominant hand than the other way around. The right hands' value is undeniable.

When it comes to Conservative Values VS Liberal Values in regards to biblical morality I think it is pretty clear that things like protecting innocent unborn life, telling and loving the truth, religious moral judgment and upholding the 10 Commandments, prayer in the schools and Christian family values that it lines up with the meaning of being on the right side of God as per the normal cultural understanding of the term. The “right” fits with this meaning.

Therefore, in this sense, maybe there is some simple understanding to be gathered regarding this verses’ instruction of using the “common instrument of action” that still has meanings as the “right-hand” applies to one’s political affiliations today and being on the right side of God when you take the action of voting.

Although I jest, there may still some truth to be found in what I said with the verse I presented:

I often also wondered why it is that Conservatives are called
the "right" and Liberals are called the "left."
By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV).
Thus sayeth the Lord. Amen.
Can't get any simpler than that.

 

[evenifigoalone]

That's a whole lot of suppositions and poorly related conclusions with nothing really solid to respond to.

The left and right paradigm, from what I understand, came from the French Revolution, dividing those who stood for and against the king/royalty on the left and right.

And, no, I already knew from the beginning that the left/right system wasn't around in Bible times. I just didn't originally know the proper context otherwise.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

...and poorly related conclusions with nothing really solid to respond to.

At least my conclusions were based on premises containing issues and claims rather than a single subjective opinion.

 

[evenifigoalone]

At least my conclusions were based on premises containing issues and claims rather than a single subjective opinion.

Got that wrong

And, the left right spectrum and King Solomon's time being centuries apart is hardly "subjective opinion", neither is the proper context of the verses. Unless you're referring to something else I don't know about.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

Got that wrong

Pretty sure I read your entire argument’s conclusion as an attempt at a mere dismissive subjective opinion of my arguments, correctly.

And, the left right spectrum and King Solomon's time being centuries apart is hardly "subjective opinion", neither is the proper context of the verses. Unless you're referring to something else I don't know about.

The "right-hand" being the go-to side for the "common instrument for action" holds pretty well throughout biblical context and your "subjective opinion" was in regards to your short-sighted dismissive conclusion to the argument of the term of "Right" having a cultural significance in its meaning today which compares to those times.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Pretty sure I read your entire argument’s conclusion as a mere dismissive opinion of my arguments, correctly.

The "right-hand" being the go-to side for the "common instrument for action" holds pretty throughout biblical context and your "subjective opinion" was in regards to your short-sided dismissive conclusion to the argument of the term of "Right" having a cultural significance in its meaning today which compares to those times.

That has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. The whole right hand things still lives on today, yes, but it has naught to do with the political paradigm which came from elsewhere. Your argument is heavily flawed.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

...political paradigm which came from elsewhere.

Where did it come from? Do you think the common meanings of "right and left" were overlooked when the sides were picked? Like I asked, did it vanish??? I don't think so, it (the values of conservatives) just fit too well as "right" for me to believe these long held common meanings were overlooked.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Where did it come from? Do you think the common meanings of "right and left" were overlooked when the sides were picked? Like I asked, did it vanish??? I don't think so, it (the values of conservatives) just fit too well as "right" for me to believe these long held common meanings were overlooked.

The French Revolution, as I mentioned above

Also, you may want to actually study that part of the history before you run with an assumption as massive as this one. It's wishful thinking at best
Even if it were the case, you really gonna base something decided by a secular people as reflecting "God's morality"? Their (French Revolution) idea of "the righteous right wing" would have had to have been based on secular reasoning. You're banking an awful lot on a flimsy argument.

Also important to keep in mind that the platforms of the left and right wings are different throughout history, and even different countries will think of different things if you say right wing or left wing.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

The French Revolution, as I mentioned above

Wrong, the terms of Right and Left had common meaning long before the French Revolution as I've demonstrated. I base my judgments on biblical reasoning and God's truth rather than secular liberal theologian's reflections which commonly attempt to displace biblical meanings of morals with "superior" worldly values, for example re-defining marriage and the rights to do with body as they choose even if that means destroying our unborn and these things are definitely NOT coming from being a member of God's right hand. The true Biblical sides could not be more clear.

Anyway, as I've said here before, on one of your threads in fact, I consider myself "Right" as opposed to "Wrong" being I don't take on the secular labels because they are manipulated. So, by far, if I am going to look to define the position of Right as opposed to Left my source will not be new age secular but rather old time Biblical wisdom as my guide and final authority.

Yes, I understand secularist liberal theologians do not appreciate me bringing in my Biblical understanding of truth into my political judgments but I consider their arguments heavily flawed, worldly, clumsy and on the wrong side of the action that God expects from those who are truly His, who sit on His "right" side.

That makes this verse pretty sweet:
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

 

[evenifigoalone]

Wrong, the terms of Right and Left had common meaning long before the French Revolution as I've demonstrated. I base my judgments on biblical reasoning and God's truth rather than secular liberal theologian's reflections which commonly attempt to displace biblical meanings of morals with "superior" worldly values, for example re-defining marriage and the rights to do with body as they choose even if that means destroying our unborn and these things are definitely NOT coming from being a member of God's right hand. The true Biblical sides could not be more clear.

Anyway, as I've said here before, on one of your threads in fact, I consider myself "Right" as opposed to "Wrong" being I don't take on the secular labels because they are manipulated. So, by far, if I am going to look to define the position of Right as opposed to Left my source will not be new age secular but rather old time Biblical wisdom as my guide and final authority.

Yes, I understand secularist liberal theologians do not appreciate me bringing in my Biblical understanding of truth into my political judgments but I consider their arguments heavily flawed, worldly, clumsy and on the wrong side of the action that God expects from those who are truly His.

I swear I'm losing brain cells just reading this. Are you daft?

Your argument is literally that the right wing is God's Morality UWU based on..... An association with the right hand being dominant? (That's literally the reason the verse describes right as being more reliable, that's it, that's all. It's not that deep.)

Let's recap:
-the French Revolution created the right/left political paradigm that we use today

-your claim that they (the French during the Revolution) basing their left/right labels on the idea of the dominant hand is..... unsubstantiated. An assumption, really.

-even if they DID--it literally proves nothing??? Our left and right wings aren't the same as theirs was???? Hell, it isn't the same as it was when we were founded. It isn't the same as Europe's left and right wing platforms. Yet you think that because the right wing is (possibly) based on the idea of the dominant hand, that our specific US right wing in this time of history, is exactly what God intended.

Also, offhand, I seriously doubt I'm as liberal as you think I am. Plus I'm still theologically conservative.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[evenifigoalone]

And, yes, Ecc. somehow is about US politics specifically. Why stop there. From now on, instead of using a GPS, I'll just make a right turn everywhere I go--after all, Ecc. says a wise man goes right. Context? I don't know her.

And if some random human makes an idea based off the right hand being dominant just like Ecc. does, then it's DEFINITELY reflective of God's will. Leap in logic? Don't know her either. Is she cute?

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

I swear I'm losing brain cells just reading this. Are you daft?

Apologies, I'm not going to spend time addressing your Ad Hom and breaking down your Strawmen arguments which follow it.

And, yes, Ecc. somehow is about US politics specifically.

But hey, if that verse haunts your political affiliations being on the Left for the rest of your life, then yes, she was a looker!

 

[evenifigoalone]

Apologies, I'm not going to spend time addressing your Ad Hom and breaking down your Strawmen arguments which follow it.

But hey, if that verse haunts your political affiliations being on the Left for the rest of your life, then yes, she was a looker!

Not straw man arguments in the least, but you are welcome to your delusion
And don't even talk to me about ad hominem when you used copious amounts of it. BS.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk