Charlottesville: Who reported on it correctly?

[UpperLimits]

But you insulted me by saying I was a "fool" because it usually is linked to right-wing elements, and yet I see no apology from you for doing that.

Just another insult.

One of the things I learned in grammar class was how to tell when a writer is speaking in first person, second person, or third person terms. You could save that sensitive little heinie of yours (1st person) a lot of pain if you'd learn to tell the difference. Not every thing I write is directed at you on a personal level. In fact, generally 90%, or better, of what I write is in second or third person. But if you want to relish being the "victim," then please, be my guest. (Unless, of course, you really are doing foolish things, in which instance, I rest my case.)

Frankly, I have had more than enough of your insults, so I'm at least temporarily putting you on my ignore list.

Finally, let me recommend an excellent book, namely "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas Kempis. The main point in the book is that a Christian should do his/her best to emulate Jesus, and I think you could really use what Jesus actually teaches, especially about compassion and fairness (justice) that's well covered there. And then maybe find a church that teaches that versus a rabid pit-bull approach.

Could be a nice change. It'll give me a chance to brush up on my Latin. I'm growing a bit tired of the "Well, in my denomination we do blah, blah, blah." approach.

Come back soon though. I'd still like to hear an actual answer to my question.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Much of what I've seen in the "news" boils down to: "we should deplore the alt-right".

I hate that ill-conceived term. That does nothing to address the issues.

 

[idav]

Clearly you don't understand what fascism is. Fascism is neither left, nor right. Fascism is a system of totalitarianism. Private ownership; absolute government control. If you think that you can avoid fascism by blaming all your problems, and fighting against, whatever you perceive to be "right wing"; then you're a fool.

I believe it was Ronald Regan who once said that, "If fascism ever came to America, it would come by way of the left." He was absolutely correct. One of the biggest jokes I see is the hypocrisy of fascist groups like BLM and Antifa, supposedly "fighting" fascism by introducing their own brand of left wing fascism. Even their mode of operations is a page out right of a 1920/30's history book.

Of course, people like yourself give them a complete "pass" because they're left wing supporters and fascism is "of course", a "right wing phenomenon." (Face palm.)

Pay attention to what is happening and then compare it to the record. Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric. Now, WHOSE playbook does that more readily identify with? Be honest now....


Socialism is communism. It may be "communist light", but it's still communist in it's nature.

Anything authoritarian the right generally accepts and left generally opposes. Left tends to be more libertarian in nature.

 

[UpperLimits]

You've read the Gospels.

I have.

You do know that Jesus' followers kept their possessions in common?

I do.

With certain qualifications, of course....I don't seem to recall any passages where it was said that Jesus shared His seamless robe with anyone. Although there are some factions who profess Christianity who would claim otherwise - But that's another conversation.

That it was considered blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to withhold from the community?

It was!!?? Oh, really!!

What would you call that?

The Modern Social Gospel, circa 1970 or so.

You do know that God said, "Thou shalt not steal." Right?

And you would agree that this commandment is reaffirmed in the New Testament, as well as being out right stated in the Old Testament. Correct?

Implicit in the idea of theft is the concept of privately owned property. Has it occurred to you that you cannot steal that which already belongs to you by way of being part of the "community"? If the possessions are all owned in common, then WHO, pray tell, are you stealing from?

And what about Ananias and Saphira (which the MSG loves to set up as their shining example)? Acts 5:4 NLT says, "The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was also yours to give away."

The property was theirs to sell, or not sell, as they wished. IOW, they were not under any compulsion to sell the property. And afterward, they still had control of the money. They could have kept it all if they had wanted. They were not under any compulsion to give the money away, either. Acts 5:2 NLT tells you what their sin was. "He brought part of the money to the apostles, claiming it was the full amount."

Say, ummm, You don't happen to have a Maserati, do you? I'd like to use "my car" for the evening.
No? You claim you don't?? Oh, you sinner, you!! ( TIC)

 

[UpperLimits]

Left tends to be more libertarian in nature.

And closer to anarchy....

 

[idav]

And closer to anarchy....

As opposed to total government control I'm sure there is a happy median somewhere in there.

 

[Sleeppy]

I have.


I do.

With certain qualifications, of course....I don't seem to recall any passages where it was said that Jesus shared His seamless robe with anyone. Although there are some factions who profess Christianity who would claim otherwise - But that's another conversation.


It was!!?? Oh, really!!



The Modern Social Gospel, circa 1970 or so.

You do know that God said, "Thou shalt not steal." Right?

And you would agree that this commandment is reaffirmed in the New Testament, as well as being out right stated in the Old Testament. Correct?

Implicit in the idea of theft is the concept of privately owned property. Has it occurred to you that you cannot steal that which already belongs to you by way of being part of the "community"? If the possessions are all owned in common, then WHO, pray tell, are you stealing from?

And what about Ananias and Saphira (which the MSG loves to set up as their shining example)? Acts 5:4 NLT says, "The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was also yours to give away."

The property was theirs to sell, or not sell, as they wished. IOW, they were not under any compulsion to sell the property. And afterward, they still had control of the money. They could have kept it all if they had wanted. They were not under any compulsion to give the money away, either. Acts 5:2 NLT tells you what their sin was. "He brought part of the money to the apostles, claiming it was the full amount."

Say, ummm, You don't happen to have a Maserati, do you? I'd like to use "my car" for the evening.
No? You claim you don't?? Oh, you sinner, you!! ( TIC)

1) Did Jesus share his "seamless robe"?

Yes; both theoretically and in practice.

He said, "If you will to be perfect, go away, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me."

And, in practice: Jesus' seamless coat and other clothing were literally subjects of a prophecy Jesus subscribed to. Lots were cast. Research that practice. -- Furthermore, Jesus affirmed that what would ordinarily be considered "murder" was actually self-imposed. He laid his life down, of his own accord.

2) God said to you, "Do not steal," but to me He said, "To YHVH is the earth and its fullness; the world and the inhabitants in it."

3) "They were not under any compulsion to sell the property."

False. Refer to 1 & 2.

Firstly, it is commanded that followers sell their possessions and give to the poor, i.e. community effort.

Secondly, all things belong to God, not just truth. God exercised complete ownership of the persons involved. Their lives, including their possessions, were already God's. Logically, you either admit this, or you attribute theft to God.

 

[Sleeppy]

Say, ummm, You don't happen to have a Maserati, do you? I'd like to use "my car" for the evening.
No? You claim you don't?? Oh, you sinner, you!! ( TIC)

There are enough resources on the planet for everyone's needs and wants. If you did not think to steal from God, or think that I could steal from God, you would not ask, nor would you need to. Think about that.

 

[icehorse]

There are enough resources on the planet for everyone's needs and wants. If you did not think to steal from God, or think that I could steal from God, you would not ask, nor would you need to. Think about that.

This is a tangent, but what makes you say that? It seems to me that 7 billion humans is too many for this planet. (Before anyone goes nuts, there are many loving, thoughtful, compassionate ways to slowly reduce a population.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Left tends to be more libertarian in nature.

And closer to anarchy....

You won't be able to sell that to libertarians.
We find the left to be quite economically repressive, with a
generous helping of social oppression & big government.

 

[Sleeppy]

This is a tangent, but what makes you say that? It seems to me that 7 billion humans is too many for this planet. (Before anyone goes nuts, there are many loving, thoughtful, compassionate ways to slowly reduce a population.)

It's not. We have enough food, water, resources and energy. The problem is with efficiency.

 

[idav]

You won't be able to sell that to libertarians.
We find the left to be quite economically repressive, with a
generous helping of social oppression & big government.

I know me an you part ways on economy but we agree on the other set of questions. That's where libs means libertarian or liberal.

 

[UpperLimits]

1) Did Jesus share his "seamless robe"?

Yes; both theoretically and in practice.

He said, "If you will to be perfect, go away, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me."

And, in practice: Jesus' seamless coat and other clothing were literally subjects of a prophecy Jesus subscribed to. Lots were cast. Research that practice. -- Furthermore, Jesus affirmed that what would ordinarily be considered "murder" was actually self-imposed. He laid his life down, of his own accord.

2) God said to you, "Do not steal," but to me He said, "To YHVH is the earth and its fullness; the world and the inhabitants in it."

Special rules and privileges for you, huh? LOL. (This is how cults are formed.) Sorry, but as much as you might think so, you don't have any special privilege to just take what you want. Now; asking and then God supplies - that's a different matter.

3) "They were not under any compulsion to sell the property."

False. Refer to 1 & 2.

No, Peter was quite explicit. There's simply no way around the text. They were NOT compelled to sell the property. Their sin was deceit. Frankly, I'll believe Peter's word over your interpretation, thanks.

Firstly, it is commanded that followers sell their possessions and give to the poor, i.e. community effort.

I'm not disputing it was a practice at the time. However, there was no such command as you claim.

Secondly, all things belong to God, not just truth. God exercised complete ownership of the persons involved. Their lives, including their possessions, were already God's. Logically, you either admit this, or you attribute theft to God.

That's non-sequitur - not logic.

Yes, we are all tenants. However, God did command each individual to work and be productive. Furthermore, He respects the boundaries of their work. That's why the Apostles lived by the idiom "If one doesn't work, then let him starve." Notwithstanding, you are obliged to help those who genuinely need it. But remember you're a steward. Not a government beaurocrat. Not even Jesus gave everybody everything they wanted, or demanded.

Furthermore, God would have us be giving out of love - not by compulsion. Giving out of compulsion isn't generous at all; it's socialist. And that's just a shabby fake!

 

[UpperLimits]

As opposed to total government control I'm sure there is a happy median somewhere in there.

I'm sure there's gotta be.

I've heard the left/right perspective being described as a road with the ditches being the extremes. Part of the explanation goes that it's the center position that's most important to watch. As time goes on, the center varies a bit so that the left side of the road will get a bit wider for a time, and then as time passes, this will correct itself and the right half will get a bit larger. It just seems that in the past 30 years, we've veered off the road completely into the left ditch!

 

[idav]

I'm sure there's gotta be.

I've heard the left/right perspective being described as a road with the ditches being the extremes. Part of the explanation goes that it's the center position that's most important to watch. As time goes on, the center varies a bit so that the left side of the road will get a bit wider for a time, and then as time passes, this will correct itself and the right half will get a bit larger. It just seems that in the past 30 years, we've veered off the road completely into the left ditch!

Interesting. Sure in the passed thirty years we have Clinton and Obama but there was also a Bush era. Granted jr only got 4 years.

 

[Wirey]

Much of what I've seen in the "news" boils down to: "we should deplore the alt-right".



I don't think it's merely an opinion that the authorities need to keep speakers with permits safe against rioters.

I've been trying to avoid this thread. Here goes.

First, the news isn't reporting that we should deplore the alt-right. The news is reporting that a belief system based on the eradication of a subsection of humanity based on a flawed idea of eugenics should be deplored. Let's make no mistake, the "Alt-Right" exists with the purpose of murdering women and children based on a belief system, no different than "Islamic terrorists". So, comparing the rights of the two groups should follow identical lines. The alt-right are terrorists, plain and simple, and deserve to be treated as such. My Grandfather, who as an officer in pre-WWII Germany (and fought for the Kaiser in the first one) joined the Canadian Forces and fought against the Nazis. He faced down his own countrymen over this evil, terrible, horrible belief system. Remember, the alt-right is the American Islamic terrorist, also trying to use the rules of our civilization against us.

And it is merely an opinion that the authorities need to keep speakers with permits safe against rioters when those speakers believe it is their duty to start incinerating other human beings. It is the duty of the authorities to protect it's citizens from these people, not give them a platform from which to espouse the killing of American children who don't meet their criteria for 'racial purity', something that no real scientist would ever claim exists.

And before we start on the 'everyone is to blame' track, let's take a look at the players:

Antifa: Opposes fascism. Created for the purpose of opposing fascism. Has the movement attracted a few whack jobs who believe violence is acceptable? Yes. Were they founded on that basis? No.

BLM: Created to get police to stop performing extrajudicial executions of citizens. Has the movement attracted a few whack jobs who believe violence is acceptable? Yes. Were they founded on that basis? No.

National Socialists: Created so a Master Race could starve, execute, displace, or otherwise eliminate millions of people who stood between them and what they wanted. Every single member of this group condones murder as a problem solving tool. Has the movement attracted a few whack jobs who believe violence is acceptable? Yes. Were they founded on that basis? Yes! Yes, all of them believe it!


If you can look at those three groups and say "equal", I genuinely pity you.

 

[icehorse]

If you can look at those three groups and say "equal", I genuinely pity you.

That's one of the most (I suspect intentional), strawman arguments I've heard, I pity you, if that's indicative of your level of reasoning ability.

 

[Wirey]

That's one of the most (I suspect intentional), strawman arguments I've heard, I pity you, if that's indicative of your level of reasoning ability.

So BLM and the Nazis are, in fact, equal?

 

[icehorse]

So BLM and the Nazis are, in fact, equal?

Never said that. I suspect you know I didn't say that. I'm going to walk away from this little strawman festival you're cooking up. see ya.

 

[Falvlun]

Vice News did a rather excellent job at reporting on this.

The video is 22 min long. They had a reporter embedded with the neo-Nazi's. She did a remarkable job of remaining even-keeled throughout the whole thing, letting the Nazi's do the talking. You don't need someone else telling you these people were the bad guys, when it's easy to see it with your own eyes.