In a generation, there will be no Europe as it has been known. As for Obamacare, the U.S. is a nation of the walking dead, whereas the majority are overweight or obese, with diabetes, heart disease, mental instability, poor fitness, and on a general decline. Obamacare is not working. Under the present Progressive government, most people are worried about affording to buy food, pay their rent, pay their car payment, and pay their insurance. They will probably worry themselves to death.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How does Scripture define the left (Progressives) from the right (conservatives)?
- Thread starter 2ndpillar
- Start date
Please explain to me how it is that the "overweight or obese" "majority" include far more than their fair share of Christians.
And while we're talking about Europe and the US, the First World generally, why do you think religious belief,, starting of course with Christianity, is declining at such a noticeable and accelerating rate?
Christianity, based mostly on the false gospel of grace, of the false prophet Paul, is on the way out (Matthew 7:24-27). It is the religion based on the tare seed, the "message" of the "enemy", and as the "end of the age" comes into focus, is the end of the tares, the followers of the false gospel of grace/lawlessness (Mt 13:24-49).
Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
But the Laws of Moses clearly show just how progressive they were.
The Law provided for everybody, no matter their position or power.
See how God's laws to the Israelites insisted that all should be provided for.....by law!
Exodus {22:25} If thou lend money to [any of] my people [that is] poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Leviticus {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Leviticus {19:9} And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
Leviticus {19:10} And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather [every] grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I [am] the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy {15:1} At the end of [every] seven years thou shalt make a release. {15:2} And this [is] the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth [ought] unto his neighbour shall release [it;] he shall not exact [it] of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD’S release.
Deut {15:7} If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: {15:8} But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, [in that] which he wanteth.
Deuteronomy {24:6} No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh [a man’s] life to pledge.
The summation of the Law was to do to others as you would have them to for you. That is individual responsibility, not top down taking from Peter to pay Paul by some better than thou government. The Law states that one is not to covet their neighbors' goods, much less forcibly take them to give to someone the government chooses. The Law is the objective rock to base one's actions. Not some subjective woke viewpoint, based on some supposedly supreme moral humanistic values, such as perform surgery on mentally confused children, or force women to compete with men in sports, or tramp on laws made by the government, to meet subjective moral decisions of self-appointed moral superiors, or let the lawless out of jail, to enable them to rob, or kill again, to show someone's subjective idea of mercy. No, justice is to treat everyone the same, as in the same justice for the rich and the poor. The judgments were set in the law. The judgment for king David's sin will also apply to the poor man's similar actions, except when David lost his kingdom for his sin, it will be considerably more in extent than the kingdom the poor man loses. As for Ex 22:25, with respect to lending money, that would be to "my people", which would exclude the nations/Gentiles. On the other hand, the "stranger" could glean from the land, using their own energy.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
There was a government, and taxation/ceremonies/systems which provided for that government to exist.
The law was writ large for all to follow, so your 'do unto others' idea was much more exact and detailed in 613 laws.
The laws were subjective, needed to be if the Israelite nation was to survive.
At that time and for that time they were exactly was was needed for a successful people that had a chance of growing and existing.
I showed some of the poor laws that were in that legislation but you did not reply to any of them.
However you mentioned just a couple in the next piece which I will answer there........
You mention King David to me in reply to my post about the laws of Moses, King David wasn't around when they were produced.
But since you mention him, King David bust those laws, and was reduced for it.
The bible tells that God offered those laws to all/any of the peoples who had been around previously, but that they ignored them, and he explained this to the Israelites (or Moses).
Every person was a part of the whole, supported by the whole and cared for by the whole community.
That's what the Mosiac law required of the more fortunate, capable and able people, see below. Such laws as this formed a coherent and strong nation, and only until they were discarded did the nation crumble and fall away.
Leviticus {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
And we haven't moved forward to what Jesus said, have we? You've got all that to come!
The "laws" were given to Israel after they sinned and sacrificed to a golden calf. There was no government/king until Israel sinned, and asked for a king, and were given Saul, who soon became demon possessed and could no longer suppress his fits. Prior to that, all they had were judges. There were no taxes, there were only tithes, given to the Levites in lieu of land. The prophets continually condemned Israeli for not treating the poor and widows properly. They did not tax Israel to keep Israelis from worshipping gods and taking the widows property. God simply took all the land away from Israel by way of Babylon, Greece, and Rome. The "laws" were for Israel, to keep it holy, not for Gentiles. Every person, including Gentiles, came under the 10 Commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). The "laws" did not apply to the Gentiles, so why are the Gentiles claiming the laws as a basis for their governance. Only the Commandments pertain to every person, for which the Gentiles often claim they are exempt. You can't have it both ways unless you are double minded.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 The conclusion, when everything has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.
I assume that you weren't around at the time of Moses, yet you will be busted as was David, and your false belief system will not protect you from your actions. You will receive judgment, whether by God directly, or by the divorce court in taking your kingdom, and giving it to another. You probably, unlike David, do not have many wives, so your loss of wives/concubines will be in a lesser amount. You won't be able to afford them at that time, so it will not be that great of a loss.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
You are still moving on a long time after those laws were written.
Another point.
The Israelites admitted any outsiders on to their midst, whether they wanted to join with them or not.
A very different tenet to that of right wingers.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
This is very interesting.
Which belief system do I hold to, do you imagine?
More interesting still..... What do you think is my kingdom?
How many wives do you think that I have?
Now.....on to Jesus. Do you think that his tenets and policies were progressive or regressive?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
That's it? That's all you have? A random nobody from some state district? No actual widespread implementation of policy or anything?
flowerpower
Member
I heard this one once when I was arguing furiously with a Christian like 10 years ago.
I'd take it with a grain of salt - seems like a form of poetry that's been lost to history.
Anatomically, our literal heart inclines to the left for what that's worth.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There's also AOC and of course the listing of politicians who signed up as DSA members and or are open socialists in the Democrat Party. There are quite a few.
List of socialist members of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
It should be noted that the Democratic party doesn't ever object or openly protest to having socialists accepted in their ranks, telling of the true political disposition of the Democrat party as a whole.
That would depend on your point of view. Heart Pictures, Diagram & Anatomy | Body Maps
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
There's also AOC and of course the listing of politicians who signed up as DSA members and or are open socialists in the Democrat Party. There are quite a few.
List of socialist members of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It should be noted that the Democratic party doesn't ever object or openly protest to having socialists accepted in their ranks, telling of the true political disposition of the Democrat party as a whole.
Do you consider Scandinavian countries socialist dystopias?
Sweden and Norway are capitalistic countries, who became rich from the capitalistic use of their oil reserves. Apparently, until recently, they felt guilt with being wealthy, increased social programs, and let in migrants, and now rue the day they did that Progressive act. Now they want to return to sanity, and recover law and order, and start using common sense measures. If you want to pay the Swedish nominal tax rate of 70% for incomes of $98,000, they are now turning away immigrants, but just get yourself on the list.https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/05/sweden-has-a-70-percent-tax-rate-and-it-is-fine/
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Then why do conservatives erroneously refer to it as "socialist" when similar policies are pursued in the U.S.?
The U.S. has similar socialist policies, such as with regard to healthcare, such as with Obama Care, and at one time open borders, plus Equity and Inclusion, which has been debunked as to creating their aims of creating equal employment of men and women in different occupations. It has only exasperated the difference between men and women in occupations. Woman simply gravitate to being nurses, whereas men gravitate to being engineers. I expect all of Europe will try and do a right turn, but it simply may be too late. The harm may already be done in some countries. Germany simply let in too many immigrants to recover and may wind up an Islamic state in another generation. London has become unrecognizable with respect to a previous generation, and if you need their free health care, you may be dead before you get into the door.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If our predatory racket of a privatized, for-profit healthcare system that tends to drive people either into debt or into the grave is better than universal healthcare, then why do all of the other developed 1st world countries prefer it over ours?