Glenn Beck disses GOD!

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The Bible is not intended for literal interpretation, much like the Koran. It takes years of study and insightful dialog to arrive at the true meaning of the scriptures, just like the Constitution.

"just like the Constitution"...You are absolutely 100% incorrect on this. The Constitution was written so as even the common person could understand it. What takes years of study and insightful dialog is to become adept at manipulating, twisting and stretching the language away from what it clearly means...no offense to any lawyers...

In a certain way understanding the Constitution is similar to understanding the Bible is context. The meaning of words and phrases change over time, so yes, a little study to understand in context certain phrases of the Constitution...but it is not a mystery to be solved.

"The Bible is not intended for literal interpretation"...Once again you are 100% absolutely incorrect.

Whether you believe in it or not, the Bible most certainly is intended to be read "literally"... in the sense adhering to the ordinary meaning of a term or expression. Once again context becomes everything. The Bible was written by different people, spanning many generations and customs. Some books are historical, revelatory, some use plain language (of their time)...some are more poetic in nature.

Just as modern writers, they use all the literary devices available. It does take diligent "study and insightful dialog" to put the Bible in context with the times, customs, who the particular book was written to and why.

Now Juan, I've given a well reasoned thought out response you may not agree with...and I know by the 200 some posts you've made...you have no desire for a well thought out discourse of ideas...So feel free to completely ignore this...I know I'll pretty much ignore your juvenile response.

quote:

As to allegations that I have spent too much time on this subject, I agree. I should not have spent so much time trying to penetrate the foggy thought processes of b50m; I have been all too patient.

You, patient? Ha, you told a funny. Seriously, you take things too literal when you shouldn't. Beck would not be sarcastic to God no matter how much you twist it.

Jesus even said to separate God from politics. Remember the 'give to Caesar what is his'?

I have said I abhor this school or I abhor this office, but of course, I meant the PEOPLE in charge at the time, not the institution.

Really, lighten up and don't listen to his radio show anymore. I don't.

beter... like I said.. read the rest of that chapter. you have cherry picked something you know nothing about and your continued tirades about it makes you look less and less stable!! lol

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
"just like the Constitution"...You are absolutely 100% incorrect on this. The Constitution was written so as even the common person could understand it. What takes years of study and insightful dialog is to become adept at manipulating, twisting and stretching the language away from what it clearly means...no offense to any lawyers...

In a certain way understanding the Constitution is similar to understanding the Bible is context. The meaning of words and phrases change over time, so yes, a little study to understand in context certain phrases of the Constitution...but it is not a mystery to be solved.

"The Bible is not intended for literal interpretation"...Once again you are 100% absolutely incorrect.

Whether you believe in it or not, the Bible most certainly is intended to be read "literally"... in the sense adhering to the ordinary meaning of a term or expression. Once again context becomes everything. The Bible was written by different people, spanning many generations and customs. Some books are historical, revelatory, some use plain language (of their time)...some are more poetic in nature.

Just as modern writers, they use all the literary devices available. It does take diligent "study and insightful dialog" to put the Bible in context with the times, customs, who the particular book was written to and why.

Now Juan, I've given a well reasoned thought out response you may not agree with...and I know by the 200 some posts you've made...you have no desire for a well thought out discourse of ideas...So feel free to completely ignore this...I know I'll pretty much ignore your juvenile response.

nailed it!! Your response about the Constitution however, makes too much sense, thus the libs won't grasp what you typed.... not until their lawyers go over it with them. lol

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
beter... like I said.. read the rest of that chapter. you have cherry picked something you know nothing about and your continued tirades about it makes you look less and less stable!! lol

I have read the entire chapter and I am competent to interpret what it says.

It establishes a general principle, namely that "The powers that be are ordained of God." That is sufficient to serve the conclusion that civil government is a God-ordained institution.

Paul goes on to give some examples of the just power of civil government, which include the power to punish crime, including capital punishment("he beareth not the sword in vain")and to levy tribute (taxes).

I did not "cherry-pick" anything when I focused on the overarching principle that God ordained the institution of civil government. If you indeed wish to contend that I "cherry-picked" anything, then show me where I allegedly committed that error. Simply to accuse me of doing so proves nothing.

When I point out what I believe to be error on the part of others, it is my custom to point out wherein the error lies. I believe that is fair, and beyond being fair, it is a thing that is necessary to prove my point.

You, on the other hand, apparently believe that your point is adequately made simply by asserting that something is or is not true. That does not get the job done, Peter, so put up something here to subststantiate what you are accusing me of or retire quietly from the field.

I submit that one who makes his arguments with facts and analysis is more STABLE than one who simply launches unproven assertions as though they were proven truths.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The Bible is not intended for literal interpretation, much like the Koran. It takes years of study and insightful dialog to arrive at the true meaning of the scriptures, just like the Constitution.

"just like the Constitution"...You are absolutely 100% incorrect on this. The Constitution was written so as even the common person could understand it. What takes years of study and insightful dialog is to become adept at manipulating, twisting and stretching the language away from what it clearly means...no offense to any lawyers...

In a certain way understanding the Constitution is similar to understanding the Bible is context. The meaning of words and phrases change over time, so yes, a little study to understand in context certain phrases of the Constitution...but it is not a mystery to be solved.

"The Bible is not intended for literal interpretation"...Once again you are 100% absolutely incorrect.

Whether you believe in it or not, the Bible most certainly is intended to be read "literally"... in the sense adhering to the ordinary meaning of a term or expression. Once again context becomes everything. The Bible was written by different people, spanning many generations and customs. Some books are historical, revelatory, some use plain language (of their time)...some are more poetic in nature.

Just as modern writers, they use all the literary devices available. It does take diligent "study and insightful dialog" to put the Bible in context with the times, customs, who the particular book was written to and why.

Now Juan, I've given a well reasoned thought out response you may not agree with...and I know by the 200 some posts you've made...you have no desire for a well thought out discourse of ideas...So feel free to completely ignore this...I know I'll pretty much ignore your juvenile response.

I appreciate your attempt to insult in your closing sentence, it leaves no doubt you are a true Christian man. As to your "well reasoned" argument, I say phfft. Jefferson was the original strict constructionist, but during his own presidency, he ignored the Constitution to make what can only be called his greatest achievement, perhaps the greatest real estate deal in history. And, he BORROWED the money from a foreign government to pay for the deal.

The original deficit spender.

Your argument fails because at no time in our history has it ever been considered true. I'm sure you're used to hearing that criticism of your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:
So you are saying the system of a government is not evil even if it is run by 'evil' people?

So the Nazi government was not evil?

Saddam was not evil?

Let me try once more, since I am not getting through to you.

GOD, who is perfect, ordained the institution of civil government, just as he ordained the institution of marriage. GOD, in His infinite wisdom, knew that in the conduct of either marriage or civil governments, imperfections and even corruption could arise, since both of these GOD-ordained institutions are comprised of human beings, who are imperfect.

Just as evil can enter and contaminate a marriage, so can evil enter and contaminate civil government. The fact that such contamination occurs in marriage or in government does not make the institution itself "evil."

Beck, in his castigation of civil government ("Government is evil") is categorically condemning, as "evil", the institution of government that GOD ordained. But neither the institution of marriage nor the institution of civil government are inherently "evil;" they are inherently good, having been ordained by God.

A marriage might be corrupted by adultery. Civil government might be corrupted by graft or bribery. The corruption comes not from GOD, but from man. Corruption of either of these good institutions by man is an insult to GOD, who created both institutions for the happiness and well-being of man.

Would Beck say that marriage is "evil" because he knows of marriages where either or both partners is faithless to the other or abuses the other? I think not. In the same way, the institution of civil government is not inherently "evil" simply because some civil governments exist that are controlled by evil people doing evil things.

Betern nuttin,

As I posted earlier, from Beck's own website, you either did not hear what Beck said on the radio correctly, or deliberately misstated his words for your own end. What is it, error or demagoguery! As I posted the accurate statement, and you continue with you post in the same vein, it must be cupidity. The entire premise for your post was destroyed, yet you continue!

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The Bible is not intended for literal interpretation, much like the Koran. It takes years of study and insightful dialog to arrive at the true meaning of the scriptures, just like the Constitution.

"just like the Constitution"...You are absolutely 100% incorrect on this. The Constitution was written so as even the common person could understand it. What takes years of study and insightful dialog is to become adept at manipulating, twisting and stretching the language away from what it clearly means...no offense to any lawyers...

In a certain way understanding the Constitution is similar to understanding the Bible is context. The meaning of words and phrases change over time, so yes, a little study to understand in context certain phrases of the Constitution...but it is not a mystery to be solved.

"The Bible is not intended for literal interpretation"...Once again you are 100% absolutely incorrect.

Whether you believe in it or not, the Bible most certainly is intended to be read "literally"... in the sense adhering to the ordinary meaning of a term or expression. Once again context becomes everything. The Bible was written by different people, spanning many generations and customs. Some books are historical, revelatory, some use plain language (of their time)...some are more poetic in nature.

Just as modern writers, they use all the literary devices available. It does take diligent "study and insightful dialog" to put the Bible in context with the times, customs, who the particular book was written to and why.

Now Juan, I've given a well reasoned thought out response you may not agree with...and I know by the 200 some posts you've made...you have no desire for a well thought out discourse of ideas...So feel free to completely ignore this...I know I'll pretty much ignore your juvenile response.

I appreciate your attempt to insult in your closing sentence, it leaves no doubt you are a true Christian man. As to your "well reasoned" argument, I say phfft. Jefferson was the original strict constructionist, but during his own presidency, he ignored the Constitution to make what can only be called his greatest achievement, perhaps the greatest real estate deal in history. And, he BORROWED the money from a foreign government to pay for the deal.

The original deficit spender.

Your argument fails because at no time in our history has it ever been considered true. I'm sure you're used to hearing that criticism of your opinion.

As a reminder, Jefferson had no part in writing the Constitution. He was serving in Paris as ambassador -- hard duty.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
beter... like I said.. read the rest of that chapter. you have cherry picked something you know nothing about and your continued tirades about it makes you look less and less stable!! lol

I have read the entire chapter and I am competent to interpret what it says.

It establishes a general principle, namely that "The powers that be are ordained of God." That is sufficient to serve the conclusion that civil government is a God-ordained institution.

Paul goes on to give some examples of the just power of civil government, which include the power to punish crime, including capital punishment("he beareth not the sword in vain")and to levy tribute (taxes).

I did not "cherry-pick" anything when I focused on the overarching principle that God ordained the institution of civil government. If you indeed wish to contend that I "cherry-picked" anything, then show me where I allegedly committed that error. Simply to accuse me of doing so proves nothing.

When I point out what I believe to be error on the part of others, it is my custom to point out wherein the error lies. I believe that is fair, and beyond being fair, it is a thing that is necessary to prove my point.

You, on the other hand, apparently believe that your point is adequately made simply by asserting that something is or is not true. That does not get the job done, Peter, so put up something here to subststantiate what you are accusing me of or retire quietly from the field.

I submit that one who makes his arguments with facts and analysis is more STABLE than one who simply launches unproven assertions as though they were proven truths.

You obviously either didn't read the rest of that chapter or you are not competent to interpret what it says... VERSE 8!!!! LOL

"Let no debt remain outstanding..." did you just miss that part??? Look at the obscene gov't spending... look at the debt and deficit that irresponsible governing have put this country in.
Verses 9 and 10 talk about keeping the cmmandments... "Do not commit adultery"... yeah, that never happens from government officials does it? And it surely never interferes with their decision making.. right?? lol
"Do not murder".. Our government passed the right to kill innocent unborn babies. How do you think God feels about that one??
"Do not steal".... no comment needed.... LMAO
A governing body is not immune from following the commandments of God, thus when their sinful acts mix with their governing.. then yes, it is evil.

From verse 11 on, it speaks soley about the love and salvation of Jesus Christ... 14"clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ..."
How many of our governing leaders do you hear saying anything like that?? Nope.. on the contrary, they are avoiding the topic of Jesus the saviour as much as possible.. They are trying to remove God from our minds and replace Him with the government... once again... THAT is evil.

Hope this cleared it up for you. yes, we should respect our governing body. However, if that governing body is in obvious and direct conflict with the Word of God, then you call a spade a spade.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
beter... like I said.. read the rest of that chapter. you have cherry picked something you know nothing about and your continued tirades about it makes you look less and less stable!! lol

I have read the entire chapter and I am competent to interpret what it says.

It establishes a general principle, namely that "The powers that be are ordained of God." That is sufficient to serve the conclusion that civil government is a God-ordained institution.

Paul goes on to give some examples of the just power of civil government, which include the power to punish crime, including capital punishment("he beareth not the sword in vain")and to levy tribute (taxes).

I did not "cherry-pick" anything when I focused on the overarching principle that God ordained the institution of civil government. If you indeed wish to contend that I "cherry-picked" anything, then show me where I allegedly committed that error. Simply to accuse me of doing so proves nothing.

When I point out what I believe to be error on the part of others, it is my custom to point out wherein the error lies. I believe that is fair, and beyond being fair, it is a thing that is necessary to prove my point.

You, on the other hand, apparently believe that your point is adequately made simply by asserting that something is or is not true. That does not get the job done, Peter, so put up something here to subststantiate what you are accusing me of or retire quietly from the field.

I submit that one who makes his arguments with facts and analysis is more STABLE than one who simply launches unproven assertions as though they were proven truths.

You obviously either didn't read the rest of that chapter or you are not competent to interpret what it says... VERSE 8!!!! LOL

"Let no debt remain outstanding..." did you just miss that part??? Look at the obscene gov't spending... look at the debt and deficit that irresponsible governing have put this country in.
Verses 9 and 10 talk about keeping the cmmandments... "Do not commit adultery"... yeah, that never happens from government officials does it? And it surely never interferes with their decision making.. right?? lol
"Do not murder".. Our government passed the right to kill innocent unborn babies. How do you think God feels about that one??
"Do not steal".... no comment needed.... LMAO
A governing body is not immune from following the commandments of God, thus when their sinful acts mix with their governing.. then yes, it is evil.

From verse 11 on, it speaks soley about the love and salvation of Jesus Christ... 14"clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ..."
How many of our governing leaders do you hear saying anything like that?? Nope.. on the contrary, they are avoiding the topic of Jesus the saviour as much as possible.. They are trying to remove God from our minds and replace Him with the government... once again... THAT is evil.

Hope this cleared it up for you. yes, we should respect our governing body. However, if that governing body is in obvious and direct conflict with the Word of God, then you call a spade a spade.

Those instructions beginning in verse 8 are to the Christians at Rome to whom the letter is addressed. They are NOT instructions concerning how government activities are to be conducted. For example (see verse 9), governments do not commit adultery; individuals do.

The last part of your post decisively brands you as some kind of theocrat who expects civil government to be an agent for promoting a particular religion. You say,

"From verse 11 on, it speaks soley about the love and salvation of Jesus Christ... 14"clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ..."
How many of our governing leaders do you hear saying anything like that?"

I hear none of our government leaders saying things like that and it is not a part of their role as government leaders to promote religion in the manner in which you imply. That part of your answer has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether civil government, an isntitution ordained by God, is or is not "evil."

Frankly, your application of this passage of scripture is one of the clumsiest I have seen in a long time. Despite your claims to Biblical understanding and your assertions that I lack competence in that realm, the above entries in this topic show precisely the reverse.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Those instructions beginning in verse 8 are to the Christians at Rome to whom the letter is addressed. They are NOT instructions concerning how government activities are to be conducted. For example (see verse 9), governments do not commit adultery; individuals do.

The last part of your post decisively brands you as some kind of theocrat who expects civil government to be an agent for promoting a particular religion. You say,

"From verse 11 on, it speaks soley about the love and salvation of Jesus Christ... 14"clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ..."
How many of our governing leaders do you hear saying anything like that?"

I hear none of our government leaders saying things like that and it is not a part of their role as government leaders to promote religion in the manner in which you imply. That part of your answer has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether civil government, an isntitution ordained by God, is or is not "evil."

Frankly, your application of this passage of scripture is one of the clumsiest I have seen in a long time. Despite your claims to Biblical understanding and your assertions that I lack competence in that realm, the above entries in this topic show precisely the reverse.

Oh my.... you are a tuff one to pass simple things along to arentcha!!?? lol

So, if those instructions are for Christians.. does that mean God is absolving all politicians of moral responsibility?... no? didn't think so. MAN corrupts things. Human beings run the government, thus, government is flawed. it's a simple connection there. If governing officials are using their political power to push policies that are in direct conflict with God, how can they be doing God's will??

And no.. I never said I think our governing leaders SHOULD say those things about Jesus Christ. But they also shouldnt be dodging the word Jesus like a runaway locomotive either. They shouldnt be afraid to say the name of Christ, or ashamed of it. They shouldnt be trying to erase the very thought of Christ as the Savior from our minds so that the citizens think only the government can save them. I don't think the govt should force anything on it's people, especially any religious belief. But the fact is, a large majority of this country has a foundation in the belief of God the Creator, and that Jesus Christ is the Savior. But YOU brought up a discussion connecting God's Holy Word and the government. So don't get pissy with me when I point out to you that denying the name of Christ, whether a governing official or not, is sinful and disrespectful to God.

and my "application of this passage of scripture is one of the clumsiest" huh?? LOL... YOU HAVE ZERO APPLICATION OF ANY SCRIPTURE!!!
lol... you have tried your best to make this idiotic connection ONLY so you can bash Glenn Beck(who I still think you got just a lil bit of a crush on.... lol).

Also... What American government are you saying was ordained by God?

The one our founding fathers set up nicely.. or the one that is currently in action... you know, the one that has ripped the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to shreads and pissed on the graves of our founding fathers?? which government did God ordain for America? The original one, or this perversion of it we are currently living through?

Here you go, Peter--item by item:

[QUOTE]So, if those instructions are for Christians.. does that mean God is absolving all politicians of moral responsibility?... no? didn't think so. MAN corrupts things. Human beings run the government, thus, government is flawed. it's a simple connection there. If governing officials are using their political power to push policies that are in direct conflict with God, how can they be doing God's will??[QUOTE]

Those instructions, Peter, are for Christians, whether those Christians are in or out of the government. They are instructions for personal conduct in personal matters and not instructions in how to execute the particular functions of government. I don't expect you to understand that, however, since it is your custom to blur the two.

[QUOTE] And no.. I never said I think our governing leaders SHOULD say those things about Jesus Christ.[QUOTE]

Oh,then it must not have been YOU who posted THIS: "[B]From verse 11 on, it speaks soley about the love and salvation of Jesus Christ... 14"clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ...How many of our governing leaders do you hear saying anything like that??" As I indicated avove, it is NOT the function of the officials of government to promote any religion in particular or one religion over another. That is what the First Amendment is about.

[QUOTE] Nope But they also shouldnt be dodging the word Jesus like a runaway locomotive either. They shouldnt be afraid to say the name of Christ, or ashamed of it. They shouldnt be trying to erase the very thought of Christ as the Savior from our minds so that the citizens think only the government can save them. I don't think the govt should force anything on it's people, especially any religious belief.[QUOTE]NOW, your paranoia is showing. These things simply are not happening.

[QUOTE]But the fact is, a large majority of this country has a foundation in the belief of God the Creator, and that Jesus Christ is the Savior.[QUOTE] No problem with that, but it has nothing to do with whether God did or did not ordain civil government. You have strayed from the topic.

[QUOTE]But YOU brought up a discussion connecting God's Holy Word and the government. So don't get pissy with me when I point out to you that denying the name of Christ, whether a governing official or not, is sinful and disrespectful to God.[QUOTE] Sinful, yes, but that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
and my "application of this passage of scripture is one of the clumsiest" huh?? LOL... YOU HAVE ZERO APPLICATION OF ANY SCRIPTURE!!!
lol... you have tried your best to make this idiotic connection ONLY so you can bash Glenn Beck(who I still think you got just a lil bit of a crush on.... lol).[QUOTE]

Betern nuttin,

As I've shown you're not even beating a dead horse; you're beating a non-existent horse! Basically, you're arguing with yourself. and, doing a poor job of it.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Betern nuttin,

As I've shown you're not even beating a dead horse; you're beating a non-existent horse! Basically, you're arguing with yourself. and, doing a poor job of it.

You have shown nothing of the kind. The material you posted from Beck said this:

"As long as we understand that government is inherently evil, it's necessary, but we don't ever give it too much power, we'll be okay."

I presume that Beck understands what "inherently" means. Do YOU understand that, elinterventor? That descriptor leaves no doubt what the pudgy prevaricator was trying to say. "Inherently" means that something--in this case "evil"--is in the very nature of the thing discussed, is in the fabric of it.

You also said:

"Using the logic of reductio ad absurdum, you must believe the American War for Independence was evil, as well; that opposing the German NSDAP lead government of WWII was wrong; and that opposing the half dozen or so communists governments that slaughtered about 200 million humans in the last century was wrong, as well."

I support none of those propositions. There is legitimacy to opposing and deposing governments that become corrupt. But, as I have emphasized throughout, the institution of civil government, having been ordained by God is not evil. When Beck contends--as he most certainly did, in the very material you cited, "that government is inherently evil," he is thereby characterizing that which is ordained of God as an evil thing.

The Beckian steed that I was beating was and is very much alive and all too often gallops upon the airwaves, dispensing the kind of wingnutty twaddle I have cited correctly above. Someone needs to follow that horse around with a pail and shovel and clean up after it. It has already defiled all too much of the marketplace of ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Betern nuttin,

As I've shown you're not even beating a dead horse; you're beating a non-existent horse! Basically, you're arguing with yourself. and, doing a poor job of it.

You have shown nothing of the kind. The material you posted from Beck said this:

"As long as we understand that government is inherently evil, it's necessary, but we don't ever give it too much power, we'll be okay."

I presume that Beck understands what "inherently" means. Do YOU understand that, elinterventor? That descriptor leaves no doubt what the pudgy prevaricator was trying to say. "Inherently" means that something--in this case "evil"--is in the very nature of the thing discussed, is in the fabric of it.

You also said:

"Using the logic of reductio ad absurdum, you must believe the American War for Independence was evil, as well; that opposing the German NSDAP lead government of WWII was wrong; and that opposing the half dozen or so communists governments that slaughtered about 200 million humans in the last century was wrong, as well."

I support none of those propositions. There is legitimacy to opposing and deposing governments that become corrupt. But, as I have emphasized throughout, the institution of civil government, having been ordained by God is not evil. When Beck contends--as he most certainly did, in the very material you cited, "that government is inherently evil," he is thereby characterizing that which is ordained of God as an evil thing.

The Beckian steed that I was beating was and is very much alive and all too often gallops upon the airwaves, dispensing the kind of wingnutty twaddle I have cited correctly above. Someone needs to follow that horse around with a pail and shovel and clean up after it. It has already defiled all too much of the marketplace of ideas.

sure - fine, Beck is a wingnut. However we're all waiting for you to own up to your own moonbattiness.

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Betern nuttin,

As I've shown you're not even beating a dead horse; you're beating a non-existent horse! Basically, you're arguing with yourself. and, doing a poor job of it.

You have shown nothing of the kind. The material you posted from Beck said this:

"As long as we understand that government is inherently evil, it's necessary, but we don't ever give it too much power, we'll be okay."

I presume that Beck understands what "inherently" means. Do YOU understand that, elinterventor? That descriptor leaves no doubt what the pudgy prevaricator was trying to say. "Inherently" means that something--in this case "evil"--is in the very nature of the thing discussed, is in the fabric of it.

You also said:

"Using the logic of reductio ad absurdum, you must believe the American War for Independence was evil, as well; that opposing the German NSDAP lead government of WWII was wrong; and that opposing the half dozen or so communists governments that slaughtered about 200 million humans in the last century was wrong, as well."

I support none of those propositions. There is legitimacy to opposing and deposing governments that become corrupt. But, as I have emphasized throughout, the institution of civil government, having been ordained by God is not evil. When Beck contends--as he most certainly did, in the very material you cited, "that government is inherently evil," he is thereby characterizing that which is ordained of God as an evil thing.

The Beckian steed that I was beating was and is very much alive and all too often gallops upon the airwaves, dispensing the kind of wingnutty twaddle I have cited correctly above. Someone needs to follow that horse around with a pail and shovel and clean up after it. It has already defiled all too much of the marketplace of ideas.

sure - fine, Beck is a wingnut. However we're all waiting for you to own up to your own moonbattiness.

More ad hominem insult as your impotent surrogate for informed debate, marksw. Pretty pitiful and inept, really.

Your item by item didn't answer any of the questions I raised.... oh me...

but lets go back to what you originally posted... should we be totally and blindly submissive to the gov't... once again, the post of mine you ignored...

Also... What American government are you saying was ordained by God?

The one our founding fathers set up nicely.. or the one that is currently in action... you know, the one that has ripped the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to shreads and pissed on the graves of our founding fathers?? which government did God ordain for America? The original one, or this perversion of it we are currently living through?

point being... if we are to live by the "higer power" of government... that is The Constitution, not King Barry Obama. The Constitution is our document of "higher power" that we are to be following. It is a meaningless document in the eyes of modern day politicians..... so, what are we to follow?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:

sure - fine, Beck is a wingnut. However we're all waiting for you to own up to your own moonbattiness.

More ad hominem insult as your impotent surrogate for informed debate, marksw. Pretty pitiful and inept, really.

Weeeelll, you should know berternobody, it's your favorite game apparently. You just choose to do it against people who will never log in here and call you on your juvenile antics.