Trump Assassination Attempt At Correspondents Dinner

[JonC]

Do you all think that Christians started supporting war after they became a majority in the Roman empire? If they wouldnt have served in the army, they would have been stomped… much like the Orthodox church was later by Islam.

I believe that all Christians did not, and that Christians were not the majority. Most "Christians" may have. You have to remember that conversation via compulsion is never a good idea. This is how the Catholic Church came about. We see this in Vodou, Santería, Rastafari, etc.

Over time Christians accepted political involvement as normal because of thar blend of Christianity and political life (Church and State).

 

[JonC]

In my opinion, the hypothetical time machine must be an honest evaluation. It is one thing to know all the information that we do and go back and intervene. This is the common practice of historical ethics used today. Properly done, there should be no time machine. It should be an “if you were born and lived in that time and place” question it is a difficult situation to put yourself into because, IMO, one can’t fathom today the experience of the propaganda and peer pressure that existed. A true evaluation would have to be something like “Here is John Doe and Joe Smith. They both were in similar situations. Both had the same information, or at least access to it. They each handled it differently. How would/should you handle it if you were there?”
To do anything but evaluate the realities is disingenuous to me. I can’t un-think everything I have learned about WW2. So I don’t think it’s fair to the scenario to say that I can be a completely different person with knowledge of the future. I think it’s better to take an understanding of what people were able to recognize then and apply that.
There were citizens of Germany who helped Jews. There were officers of Germany who took up arms against Hitler.
So the opportunity was there. Some people took it.

I believe we have to take the historical circumstances (as they are apt to repeat themselves in some form) but keep "us". That is the value - not imagining we go back in time but discussing what we would do should that situation again arise.

 

[DaveXR650]

I agree that were we products of the historical environment we cannot say what we would do. Most likely we would fall into the crowd. If we were Peter we most likely would have denied Jesus three times.

Being a big nerd I at one time tried to read through Solzhenityn's "The Gulag Archipelago". I remember he had a big discussion on the question of why didn't they do something about this stuff when it started in Russia. And he pointed out, as you have, that when it comes down do it, most of us do nothing and then just say "why me" when we personally are under attack. At best, we are an unstable mix of bravery and cowardice which is why I think we are all drawn to Peter and thankful that scripture recorded that.

 

[JonC]

Being a big nerd I at one time tried to read through Solzhenityn's "The Gulag Archipelago". I remember he had a big discussion on the question of why didn't they do something about this stuff when it started in Russia. And he pointed out, as you have, that when it comes down do it, most of us do nothing and then just say "why me" when we personally are under attack. At best, we are an unstable mix of bravery and cowardice which is why I think we are all drawn to Peter and thankful that scripture recorded that.

Yep. That is why we look back and ask those questions. It is difficult to examine the situation "in the moment", and even with the advantage of history we do not know what we would do when it gets real.

 

[DaveXR650]

"In an apparent reference to Trump, the letter also says "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

Well right there is a good example of where your idea and the early Christian idea of staying out of government has some merit. Notice how he has been convinced that he personally is responsible for what he perceives Trump as doing and must therefore do something. How many times have you heard even good conservatives say "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Or, "People get the worst government they will put up with". I've used those same slogans myself.

And while I think that currently there is no equivalence in degree with what the Democrats vs the Republicans are doing, I remember being somewhat concerned years ago, when pro lifers were saying that an abortion clinic was exactly like what was happening in Nazi Germany. Because, like I said earlier, we have all been conditioned regarding the Nazis "Never Again", and we all condemn the German people for allowing that to happen. We just need to think about the implications of what we say.

 

[Ben1445]

I just read this on NPR (during a break...training this week) -

"In an apparent reference to Trump, the letter also says "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

But Holt and others say these views, however pointed some of the terminology may be, fall within a modern mainstream left. He and others say it is very unclear what may have tipped the individual from such widely held views into an alleged violent plot."

This demonstrates a major problem. The article was questioning why Allen would try to kill the President because, contrary to what Republican's believe, the guy was not on the "radical left" but instead expressed mainstream moderate left beliefs.


What the shooter believed was Democrat propaganda. And the article is correct that it is not a radicalization (it is not exterme left rhetoric). It is the moderate, everyday Democrat belief.


While not the intent of the article, it highlights a greater problem. No longer is there a moderate Democrat mentality. They are indoctrinated into the extreme leftist propaganda.

A moderate Democrat mentality is now a Republican mentality (a moderate Republican).

I’d like to politely disagree with your “moderate democrat” is basically a republican. It is the other way around. If you’re still supporting democrats (in the majority) then you have been radicalized. The family is not historically moderate. They are registered and advertising democrats. That gives me a decent guess as to what their news sources are and what their political views are aside from what he stated.

 

[Ben1445]

Sorry....I quoted you on the last post without addressing your post (I wanted to let you know about the article).

I agree that were we products of the historical environment we cannot say what we would do. Most likely we would fall into the crowd. If we were Peter we most likely would have denied Jesus three times.

My point is not to travel back in time but to ask what we would do - now, with our own experience and worldviews - if we were facing that historical event.

History often repeats itself in circumstances, not identical ideology. So we ask "what would we do?", not "what would we have done back then?".

My problem with this kind of roll play is that it makes it so that you must make your President out to be Hitler for no reason.
If I had this history to do all over again, I’d say that we would be better off not trying to pretend like the President is Hitler. History repeats itself. As long as we keep roll playing ethics and blaming people for doing nothing, we will continue to have roll players attempt to assassinate the President. It’s how the propagandist trains their followers.

 

[Ben1445]

Well right there is a good example of where your idea and the early Christian idea of staying out of government has some merit. Notice how he has been convinced that he personally is responsible for what he perceives Trump as doing and must therefore do something. How many times have you heard even good conservatives say "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Or, "People get the worst government they will put up with". I've used those same slogans myself.

And while I think that currently there is no equivalence in degree with what the Democrats vs the Republicans are doing, I remember being somewhat concerned years ago, when pro lifers were saying that an abortion clinic was exactly like what was happening in Nazi Germany. Because, like I said earlier, we have all been conditioned regarding the Nazis "Never Again", and we all condemn the German people for allowing that to happen. We just need to think about the implications of what we say.

But while I may or may not have voted for my particular representative, I can call or write him and let him know how to represent me. If I have done that, I definitely don’t have any responsibility for what he does against my own view.
I would be surprised to find out this guy ever wrote the President or anyone else he was after.
I’d be surprised if he ever wrote his own representative who he shares radical views with. His manifesto is almost a quote of his representative. It sounds like he listens to his Representative.

 

[JonC]

I’d like to politely disagree with your “moderate democrat” is basically a republican. It is the other way around. If you’re still supporting democrats (in the majority) then you have been radicalized. The family is not historically moderate. They are registered and advertising democrats. That gives me a decent guess as to what their news sources are and what their political views are aside from what he stated.

I am basing the "moderate democrat" part on the more contemporary GOP. Trump is, per his policies, a moderate Democrate of yesterday.

What is now a "moderate Democrate" is what was a few years ago a radical leftist Democrat.

I am saying that the political landscape has shifted left. Yesterday's moderate Republican appears "far right" by todays standard.

And it extends outside of politics and into society as a whole. The majority of Christoans today support SSM even if they believe homosexuality is wrong.

 

[JonC]

My problem with this kind of roll play is that it makes it so that you must make your President out to be Hitler for no reason.
If I had this history to do all over again, I’d say that we would be better off not trying to pretend like the President is Hitler. History repeats itself. As long as we keep roll playing ethics and blaming people for doing nothing, we will continue to have roll players attempt to assassinate the President. It’s how the propagandist trains their followers.

No, you do not.

The Democrats have indoctrinated their sheeple to view Trump as a modern Hitler and Republicans as Nazis.

I am saying IF you believe as the Democrats believe when it comes to Trump THEN normal values may result in actions based on misinformation.


I was asking if you believe it appropriate for a person to try to kill a modern Hitler if you knew that man would continue murdering innocent (secular) people.

Some would view it as justified. Others would not. Legitimate arguments can be made either way.


You hit at the problem - these people believe lies. I grant that is true.

But the fact what they believe is false propaganda does not negate the fact they believe it.

 

[JesusFan]

No, you do not.

The Democrats have indoctrinated their sheeple to view Trump as a modern Hitler and Republicans as Nazis.

I am saying IF you believe as the Democrats believe when it comes to Trump THEN normal values may result in actions based on misinformation.


I was asking if you believe it appropriate for a person to try to kill a modern Hitler if you knew that man would continue murdering innocent (secular) people.

Some would view it as justified. Others would not. Legitimate arguments can be made either way.


You hit at the problem - these people believe lies. I grant that is true.

But the fact what they believe is false propaganda does not negate the fact they believe it.

Interesting to me though is that God kept n president Trump from being killed 3 times, so those against him need to quit doing those acts of darkness, as God has his back

 

[Ben1445]

But the fact what they believe is false propaganda does not negate the fact they believe it.

This is why role playing ethics is not healthy unless it’s done correctly.

 

[Ben1445]

I was asking if you believe it appropriate for a person to try to kill a modern Hitler if you knew that man would continue murdering innocent (secular) people.

We have modern examples of this.
Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Maduro.
They each have their different applications in scenario.
But these were all carried out by the authority of governments.
Some random person taking the law into their own hands, or making their own laws and applying them to other people is NOT okay. The closest thing to vigilante that we need is bounty hunters. Somehow this is a cost effective solution to catching criminals. But even in that case, there is a warrant. They are backed up by government authorities.
The last thing we need is every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 17:6)

 

[Ben1445]

This is why role playing ethics is not healthy unless it’s done correctly.

Again I say that the right way would be to find two people who lived the same lives as much as that is possible, while choosing different solutions.
Who was right and who was wrong in those scenarios. I think we set ourselves up for failure when we give the possibility of “when what happened before happens again.”
The media is reporting that it is happening again. This is the response that these would be killers have mentally trained for. They have crossed a line by saying that they can morally take a life by their own authority. It is not justifiable. There is no basis for this sort of judgement by one person as a legitimate form of acting law.

 

[JonC]

This is why role playing ethics is not healthy unless it’s done correctly.

I disagree. It is something that is healthy to do (think about a situation and ponder what you would have done, what position you would have supported, what influences are similar or different, etc.).

In fact, this is one purpose of Scripture (to nit only learn from but to learn by identifying with past events). Jesus ushered others into this type of thinking several times in the Bible. It is how errant decisions are identified.

When we look at history we can, and should, simply ask what we would do should such an event occur in our lifetime.

BUT it is a problem when people try to decontextualize history, extract a few items, and use it as a weapon.

This is what both political parties have done. We see this in the Democrat use of "nationalism". We also see this in the Republican use of "communism".

The goal is to paint the political opponent as the ultimate villain by exaggerating and expanding their positions.


For example, Republicans hold patriotic values and seek to put "America first". Democrats take that and make a false association to Nazi Germany.

Democrats have increasingly adopted democratic socialism as an ideology. Republicans take that and make a false association to communism.

The goal is to remove any middle ground, to ostracize the political opponent in such a way that any political good is viewed as a step towards a destructive end.

 

[Ben1445]

It is something that is healthy to do (think about a situation and ponder what you would have done, what position you would have supported, what influences are similar or different, etc.).

This is what I have said should be done. We don’t seem to disagree.
I disagree with the way it is currently being done.

 

[JonC]

Again I say that the right way would be to find two people who lived the same lives as much as that is possible, while choosing different solutions.
Who was right and who was wrong in those scenarios. I think we set ourselves up for failure when we give the possibility of “when what happened before happens again.”
The media is reporting that it is happening again. This is the response that these would be killers have mentally trained for. They have crossed a line by saying that they can morally take a life by their own authority. It is not justifiable. There is no basis for this sort of judgement by one person as a legitimate form of acting law.

I disagree.

Typically those living the same lives as those historical people will make the same choices as they hold the same worldviews.

We should not evaluate how to handle a reoccurring event by excluding those who have benefitted from that hindsight.

It does not matter how people in the circumstance of, and with the viewpoints of, the early 20th century Germans would handle the situation should it arise. It matters how current people would handle the situation.

 

[Ben1445]

Democrats have increasingly adopted democratic socialism as an ideology. Republicans take that and make a false association to communism.

Did you know that there are still active communists out there? And they are not hiding either. I don’t think it is all hyperbole.

 

[Ben1445]

I disagree.

Typically those living the same lives as those historical people will make the same choices as they hold the same worldviews.

But they all didn’t. The TenBoom family lived in the same neighborhood as their neighbors. (Now that is deep) Their response to the Holocaust was different than others who lived in the same place at the same time.

We should not evaluate how to handle a reoccurring event by excluding those who have benefitted from that hindsight.

The idea is that we have the hindsight. We are able to look at the outcome and determine who made the better choice. But we can’t assume anything that they knew beyond what they wrote. If you read what people wrote, they often include the moment they realized the extent of what was happening. It is always later than what you would assume.

It does not matter how people in the circumstance of, and with the viewpoints of, the early 20th century Germans would handle the situation should it arise. It matters how current people would handle the situation.

We are not going into the time machine. We are not pretending the people who lived during the holocaust are us today. That would be trying to repeat history.
We should be looking at who handled it differently, why, and who handled it correctly and why.
But it is not helpful to live a fairy tale scenario. We learn from other’s examples and learn from them. It is useless to apply their circumstances to ours. They are not the same. We need to look at the fundamental differences between views then and apply the lessons learned to today.

 

[JonC]

But they all didn’t. The TenBoom family lived in the same neighborhood as their neighbors. (Now that is deep) Their response to the Holocaust was different than others who lived in the same place at the same time.


The idea is that we have the hindsight. We are able to look at the outcome and determine who made the better choice. But we can’t assume anything that they knew beyond what they wrote. If you read what people wrote, they often include the moment they realized the extent of what was happening. It is always later than what you would assume.


We are not going into the time machine. We are not pretending the people who lived during the holocaust are us today. That would be trying to repeat history.
We should be looking at who handled it differently, why, and who handled it correctly and why.
But it is not helpful to live a fairy tale scenario. We learn from other’s examples and learn from them. It is useless to apply their circumstances to ours. They are not the same. We need to look at the fundamental differences between views then and apply the lessons learned to today.

Again, I am not talking about a time machine.

I am saying we shoukd look at historical events that could reoccur and ask "if this were to happen today, what should be our response?".


For example: Daniel refused to bow to King Nebuchadnezzar's 90-foot golden image.

We should not just ignore that event because we can't go back in a time machine. Instead we can ask ourselves - what should we do and what would we do if faced with a similar situation?

It does not matter to us what modern Jews living in the Middle East would do. It matters what we would do.

If a man akin to Hitler rose up politically, what would we do?

The exploration also provides a warning of what, while it may or may not, could happen if such questions are not asked and history is ignored as not applicable because we live in a different time and place.