#10. To: wudidiz, PSUSA2, wakeup, Artisan, christine, Jethro Tull (#5)
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. (Proverbs 1:7) Not a servile fear, but a reverence for the infinite Creator., who gives us all that is good & knows what is best for us.
But, isn't free will based on fear of "the eternal lake of fire" the moral equivalent of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina's "civic reviews" in lieu of secret ballot elections?
___________________________________
Those who did not contribute, or join the party, did so at their own risk. Opponents of the regime were mysteriously killed. In 1934, Trujillo, who had promoted himself to generalissimo of the army, was up for re-election. Although he would have won in any case as there was virtually no organized opposition left in the country, Trujillo dispensed even with these formalities. Instead, he relied upon "civic reviews", with large crowds shouting their loyalty to the government.
Personality Cult
At the suggestion of Mario Fermín Cabral, Congress voted overwhelmingly in 1936 to rename the capital from Santo Domingo to Ciudad Trujillo. The province of San Cristobal was created as "Trujillo", and the nation's highest peak, Pico Duarte, was renamed Pico Trujillo in his honor. Statues of "El Jefe" were mass-produced and erected across the Republic, and bridges and public buildings were named in his honor.
The nation's newspapers now had praise for Trujillo as part of the front page, and license plates included the slogan: "Viva Trujillo!" An electric sign was erected in Ciudad Trujillo so that "Dios y Trujillo" could be seen at night as well as in the day. Eventually, even churches were required to post the slogan: "Dios en cielo, Trujillo en tierra" (God in Heaven, Trujillo on Earth).
As time went on, the order of the phrases was reversed (Trujillo on Earth, God in Heaven). Trujillo was recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize by his admirers, but the committee declined the suggestion. (presumably because the committee didn't have the wisdom that comes from having machine guns trained on them while deliberating-HD)
When he received (or summoned) a visitor, his four bodyguards would have submachine guns trained upon the "guest" during the meeting.[8]
[wiki]
To the good Christians of Santo Domingo the power of "God and Trujillo" was a distinction with very little difference.. Those who believed that both had the power of life and death over them did not openly question the morality of either "deity".
Now 4um's Christians may feel obligated to argue that God's (aka Jehovah Q. Schwartz and Jesus H. Christ's) power was legit but Trujillo's wasn't. But God never threw anyone into stinking cells with other naked and brutalized men or allowed them to succumb to TB or pneumonia for "failure to proclaim their deepest "love" for him.
And, in Santo Domingo God's "Four horsemen" were no match for four bodyguards wielding machine guns, and under those conditions it was clear which "deity" was more worthy of multiple statues.
Christians who don't fear God (i.e., ass raping priests) cannot love him because the Biblical definition of that love is simply a mandatory profession of affection to avoid consequences of unspeakable horror. Under those conditions "free will" is no choice at all. The only reason that some commit the ultimate crimes or "sins" is because they're confident that, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." (Mark Twain)
So, any ballot or plebiscite which God controls (or Trujillo controlled) is (or was) no more valid than the elections that used paperless, electronic voting machines where the results contradicted the exit polls and entire Democratic precincts inexplicably voted overwhelmingly Republican.
"Fear of Trujillo is the beginning of wisdom".
Now that makes perfect sense to all but the most extreme, wild eyed, would-be martyrs and of course those who have sacrificed nothing but were willing to kill others to force affectionate compliance, i.e., Bush supporters who threatened Natalie Maines and The Dixie Chicks. So, what do devout neoChristians (like John Hagee or Michele Bachmann or Bill O"Reilly) and anonymous "Assassins For Bush" have in common? Well, having two deities is fine as long as one doesn't interfere with or question the validity of the signing statements and/or executive orders of the other.
To the true Christians here who are hurt by such statements, I don't see how any mere mortal can clean up your house. But, you may wish to abandon those who allow no criticism presumably because even a "bad Christian" is better than a "good skeptic, agnostic or atheist". Someone should expose those who ride through the night with the cross of St. George on their gowns (or Kevlar helmets or tailored made "Sunday go to meetin' suits, and for GAWD"S SAKE don't mention Jesus while our honored Israeli/AIPAC guests are here") If Christian patriots (And I don't mean treasury looting warlords like Erik Prince or high priests like Dick Cheney) don't finger the bastards then they should stand aside while others expose the blatant hypocrisy of the Night Riders & Election Riggers For Jesus.
free will is not based on fear, it is inherent in us as humans. In other words, no one is forcing us to do anything. True faith is not based on fear of hell, but in love. As an aside, surely the concept of punishment of evil makes sense to you. It must.
#168. To: Artisan, wudidiz, PSUSA2, christine (#48)
free will is not based on fear, it is inherent in us as humans. In other words, no one is forcing us to do anything. True faith is not based on fear of hell, but in love. As an aside, surely the concept of punishment of evil makes sense to you. It must.
There was a time when federal courts openly admitted that our tax system is "based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." When people started catching on the IRS then sent shills onto TV shows to redefine it as "voluntary compliance" (which is not what the courts said) and we were told that, "If you stop at a red traffic signal you do so voluntarily." So, according to that logic all laws with criminal penalties are based on "voluntary compliance", presumably because there's no cop present at all times preventing your lawlessness. (It would be interesting to hear how the IRS's definition differs from "mandatory compliance.")
And, for that matter, if free will is based on "love of G_D" (or else) then how would that differ if it was based on mandatory compliance? For instance, suppose someone started a new religion that had as its basic tenet, "G_D, I don't love you but I fear eternal punishment so I'll follow your nerd rules to the letter!" Shouldn't such a person be respected as a true Christian and an honest person, too? Or does one not only have to proclaim a love for G_D but assert that the fear (synonymous with love) would be there even if there were no horrible consequences for "failure to volunteer"?
Is it your position that we're free to accept or reject G_D because the punishment isn't immediate, such your head exploding the instant you have a heretical thought? The punishment for murder or running a red light isn't immediate...yet.* And if the promise of eternal "durn-nation" in fire and brimstone is to be believed then any assertion that "free will voluntary compliance" with the tenets of the various corporate faiths as defined in sec. 501(c)(3)IRS Code is based on love, then those who raved about "The Emperor's New Clothes" must have convinced themselves that his extravagant new glad rags were dope!
Remember in that fable the swindlers/tailors had convinced all of the town folk that if they couldn't see the boss's new threads it meant they were unqualified for their respective positions. And any Christian who says "Fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom" but then fails to define "fear" as "love" is unqualified for the title of soldier in the army of G_D. (and by that definition we can assume that John Wayne Bobbitt must really love the thought of awakening to the sight of Lorena with a carving knife, right?)
During the dark days of Soviet tyranny everyone proclaimed their loyalty to the state, which for most meant "as loyal as I need to be to avoid the gulags." And, the only way to prove that one was a "true Bolshevist" was to snitch and/or kill those regarded as threats and therefore enemies of the state.
During the Crusades there was only one way that the knights in arms could prove they were "true Christians", too. Their modern counterparts are not only willing to kill innocents, many of who are "hoarding G_d's oil", (they can be ID'ed by the bumper stickers that read LET'S KICK THEIR ASSES AND TAKE THEIR OIL") but they seem to believe that the ravings of lunatic Zionist Ashkenazim are the latest chapters of The New Testament. And, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that other "knights of The Modern Crusade" were plotting ways to murder Natalie Maines, too.
If the majority of Christians welcomed truth for its own sake they'd admit that fear means fear, and they may even agree with Wayne Madsen:
"The Israeli Lobby owns the Congress, media, Hollywood, Wall Street, both political parties, and the White House. This kind of talk will get people fired by this lobby, as we have seen recently with White House correspondent Helen Thomas and CNN anchor Rick Sanchez. However, many Americans are growing tired of the arrogance of the Israel Lobby and their bigoted attitudes toward anyone who challenges their influence-peddling and their ridiculous insistence that Israel must be supported because of some ancient fairy tales involving some tribes who wandered the deserts of the Middle East and saw and heard non-existent things because of sun stroke, drinking bad water, and smoking local hallucinogenic plants."
If we follow the Biblical tenet to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" then adherence to man's law is mandatory. And if that means that only govt approved religions are legit, then show me a bona fide {501(c)(3)} church that accepts your political beliefs as consistent with Christian beliefs. And, preferably a denomination that uses grape juice during communion because the (legit, bona fide and govt approved) church in which I was baptized believed that "them other sinners who use wine are going to Hayull."
George Carlin's mockery in the video below may be offensive to you, but what of any part of it can you honesty and effectively dispute?
_______________________________
* (although we do see more and more examples of summary execution as cops use no knock warrants to make "dynamic entries" into the wrong addresses to kill homeowners who attempt to defend against the invasions, and then the cops skate scot free)
Carlin kind of lost me for a second when he said that 'god' had to be a man because women would not fuck it up like a man would.
But other than that, he hits the nail on the head.
If we follow the Biblical tenet to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" then adherence to man's law is mandatory. And if that means that only govt approved religions are legit, then show me a bona fide {501(c)(3)} church that accepts your political beliefs as consistent with Christian beliefs. And, preferably a denomination that uses grape juice during communion because the (legit, bona fide and govt approved) church in which I was baptized believed that "them other sinners who use wine are going to Hayull."
This is precisely why I think that some, or even most here that call themselves christians have much more in common with theistic Satanism than Christianity. They're rebels against tyranny and authoritarianism in general, yet the they cling desperately to the tyrant kike "god".
George Carlin's mockery in the video below may be offensive to you, but what of any part of it can you honesty and effectively dispute?
Hear the crickets chirping??? Is that a pin I heard drop?