1 2 3 4
Translation: You're free to think exactly like me.
You're an asshole. Fuck off.
9/25/2010 1:58:57 PM
The tyranny of Marx is more free than the tyranny of a Righteous Republic, as you present it. And both have their share of worship.
9/25/2010 2:02:22 PM
> In a Righteous Republic, there is freedom to worship, but in a democracy there is the worship of freedom.
In a Democracy there are various Terms for Confusion, but in Righteous Republic there is a Confusion over Terms!
> But it never advocates freedom merely as freedom, or freedom for freedom’s sake.
The funny thing about freedom is that it often works only as an all-or-nothing deal. You have to be pretty darn sure that the limits you put in don't hurt anyone.
9/25/2010 2:11:48 PM
Sounds like you don't know the definition of freedom...
9/25/2010 2:11:56 PM
So in other words, freedom for everyone else is bad, but freedom for me and my fellow bigots is good. Wow, GDIAF. Seriously.
9/25/2010 2:19:48 PM
I notice that the author presents democracy as "worship of freedom", tyranny and Marxism as "worship of man", and this Righteous Republic as "worship of God". So where does one go for a situation where absolutely nothing is worshiped, in their eyes?
9/25/2010 2:30:18 PM
"Freedom is slavery!"
"War is peace!"
"Ignorance is strength!"
"Worship is achievement!"
Ah, plus-good ol' doublethink, so useful in keeping the sheep oppressed.
If you want an image of religion, it is the sandal of Jesus, on the foot of a clergyman, stamping on the face of the faithful again and again. For ever.
9/25/2010 2:33:35 PM
This is the absolutely most disturbing thing I have ever read
This really does go to show the kind of mindless spew these people come up with
9/25/2010 2:38:34 PM
This offends all of my senses and sensibilities. By God, I can TASTE it. Kind of like stale cornchips in moldy bean dip washed down with a can of the Beast...
9/25/2010 2:42:14 PM
Um, you do realize _The Handmaid's Tale_ and _1984_ were warnings, not guidebooks. Right?
9/25/2010 2:57:08 PM
You should see the other stuff he says in there.
He says that his "righteous republic" opposes tyranny, but so does democracy...so he then supposes that people who support democracy would "rather have a human tyrant then a divine king".
Well, if the choice is between the High General who knows he's human and the delusional megalomaniac, I'll choose the mortal.
9/25/2010 2:58:19 PM
I would like to direct the eyes of my fellow commentators to one line in particular, taken from the original article:
"To be good, something must be biblical, rather than merely ancient."
That's the problem with fundies in a nutshell. By their code of morality, ONLY things decreed in their holy book are good and correct, EVERYTHING else is evil and wrong.
Hence the above article. In a democracy, there is freedom to choose between worshipping or not worshipping. To a fundie, this is not something to be desired, but rather something to be abhored, since in their eyes it is offering a good and evil option and doing nothing to differentiate between the two.
This is the sort of fundie view that is truly scary. These are not the people who believe that god must have had a valid reason for commiting what we see as evil acts. To them, the fact that God was responsible means by definition that it is good, and nothing else will sway them.
How do you talk, argue and hopefully convince someone of something when they possess an entirely different concept of morality to you?
9/25/2010 2:59:04 PM
The "tyranny of Marx" was only ever intended to be a brief, regrettably necessary transitional period before establishing true communism, which was supposed to be an entirely free system. That the transition has yet to be successfully attempted without veering off into full blown, continuous tyranny has no bearing on Marx' intentions or motives, which were humanitarian.
The tyranny of your god, by comparison, is eternal, intentionally so, and formulated only to please said god, regardless of how anyone else feels about it.
And the plutocracies that arise and distort democracy in the unrestricted capitalist, christian, conservative society your ilk would propagate are practically indistinguishable from tyranny, at least from the perspective of the common man whom they have over a barrel and don't give a fuck about beyond his capacity to be subjugated and exploited.
9/25/2010 3:03:51 PM
What you're describing isn't freedom at all.
9/25/2010 3:08:17 PM
Fundie in a nutshell. This is why the Tea Party is so dangerous. They actually hate the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and want to create a theocracy based on the KJV.
9/25/2010 3:48:37 PM
Yes, you see that remark of yours about Israel, Egypt, and God? That is why we do not think he sounds like a good person to pledge fealty to. Because he only cares about himself and even if he does anything to help you he won't do it in a really helpful way and it'll be only for his own aggrandizement. For him. He doesn't care about you.
What I don't understand is how you have, rather than denying that selfishness, EMBRACED it and deemed it good.
9/25/2010 4:00:35 PM
9/25/2010 4:01:16 PM
Thank you, Mr. Unknown Author, for providing this excellent refutation of righteousness as a political ideal. I know it's not what you intended, but that's what you did...
9/25/2010 4:08:25 PM
Take your fascist shit and get the fuck out of my first world.
9/25/2010 4:11:21 PM
"There is a sense in which ”freedom” is a good thing. The Bible says so. But it never advocates freedom merely as freedom, or freedom for freedom’s sake. The freedom God approves of is freedom from sin and freedom to worship and obey Him. God freed Israel from Egypt, not so the Jews could sin all they wanted to, but so they could worship and obey God rather than Pharaoh. The same is true in personal salvation: God saves us and frees us, not so that we can serve sin (which is slavery) but so that we can serve Christ (which is true freedom). See how it works? "
So freedom works by not being able to sin? Which, according to the Bible, especially Leviticus, means having almost no freedom at all?
9/25/2010 4:15:32 PM
9/25/2010 4:24:21 PM
"Related to the heresy of democracy is the problem of freedom. In a Righteous Republic (e.g., Saudi Arabia or Iran), there is freedom to worship, but in a democracy there is the worship of freedom. In the one, there is freedom to worship Allah according to the Quran, and un-Islamic and pagan religions are suppressed. In the other, freedom itself is worshiped, and eventually the true worship of Allah is suppressed.
There is a sense in which ”freedom” is a good thing. The Bible and Quran say so. But it never advocates freedom merely as freedom, or freedom for freedom’s sake. The freedom Allah approves of is freedom from sin and freedom to worship and obey Him. Allah freed Israel from Egypt, not so the Jews could sin all they wanted to, but so they could worship and obey Allah rather than Pharaoh. The same is true in personal salvation: Allah saves us and frees us, not so that we can serve sin (which is slavery) but so that we can serve Allah (which is true freedom). See how it works?
“Freedom” in a democracy, however, has a different meaning altogether from freedom in a Righteous Republic. Democratic freedom is what is shown in Judges 21:25, “Everyone did what was right in his eyes.” Such freedom means freedom to “do your own thing,” regardless of what Allah or the Bible says. Democratic freedom means freedom to sin, not freedom to worship Allah in Allah’s way.
Most of us would agree that tyranny, such as Marxism, is against the idea of freedom of worship. That is only partly true. Human tyranny believes in a sort of freedom of worship – the freedom to worship Man, be he the Caesar, the Pharaoh, the Fuhrer or the State, which is Man collectivized. Human tyranny does not recognize the freedom to worship Allah, for such is a false religion which must be suppressed." ETC, ETC. ...
Same shit, different upbringing
9/25/2010 4:25:58 PM
Yeah, and what about that "Get Out of Jail Free" card, huh? What the hell is that all about?
9/25/2010 4:30:10 PM
So God gives me the freedom to worship him or burn in Hell?! If that's the case then God is the one who deserves to rot in Hell.
9/25/2010 5:54:33 PM
Performing reconnaissance on the site in general, I tried fishing out a doctrinal statement (always a good thing to look for). He doesn't have one fully fledged, but he says he is in near-total agreement with one authored by Matthew Slick. The summary: "Finally, in short, I am a five point calvinist, amillennial, post-trib rapture, peudobaptistic (not for salvation), non-cessationist, and covenantal." I have to admit that the "Five-point Calvinist" element explains quite a bit.
Indeed, he is VERY pro-predestination, and one of Slick's articles that he reprints actually says that when God said that he wills all to be saved, the "all" is only referring to Christians! Given that predestination bit, we can narrow the concept down to RTCs, I imagine...
Even better, in one of De Albatrus's own articles, at http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/myth_separation_church_state.htm, I notice this tidbit: "There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another." I guess this is why he seems to think it's impossible to not worship at least one thing?
9/25/2010 6:32:09 PM
1 2 3 4