Quotes to Ponder

[Mercy4Me]

Can you guess who wrote this:
"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others.  And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects.  Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments."

[al Hartman]

Can you guess who wrote this:
"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others.  And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects.  Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments."

Mercy,

It was C.S.Lewis, and his reference to Theocracy was regarding the kind of government that gave birth to the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, i.e. a government run by religious clerics who claim to be acting on behalf of God, but ultimately act in their own selfish interests.  (Something like that 1970s church that Dave is referring to...)

There is coming a day in which the true government of God will be made visible to all of earth and heaven, reigned over by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  In that day, all the deeds of men will be set right.

Was that your point?

al

[vernecarty]

Francis Shaeffer (who didn't call it that but he certainly saw it coming)

He certainly did. As far back as the sixties he was contending that the notion that we were living in a post-Christian society was gravely mistaken.
He was then of the opinion that we were seeing the emergence of an anti-Christian society.
In this he was right on the money as the evidence today confirms.
It seems as if believers today have no stomach for contending for the faith.
It is truly startling what supposedly Bible -believing folk will accept today with nary a whisper of challenge.
Verne


 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

[editor]

Can you guess who wrote this:
"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others.  And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects.  Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments."

Hi Mercy,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and prophecy that you are undergoing a "post Assembly Political Re-evaluation." (PAPR)

I was a member of God's party, (GOP) for my entire life.  Afterall, they are the party with Christian values, right?

Wrong!  There are some things the democrats stand for that are Christian as well.

"Should I be a democrat?" I asked myself.  No!  They have too much other stuff that is really, really bad.

Anyways, I am now a Libertarian.  The fastest growing aspect of the party is from Evangelical Christians.

Kudos on accurately discerning the hypocrisy of the religious right!  Please steer clear of the socially conscious left, and embrace the concepts of freedom.

(I may be way off base here, in which case forgive my assumptions!)

Brent

"America is great because America is good."  Alexis deToqueville in Democracy in America

Liberty and freedom are the best vehicles for spreading the gospel, and the gospel is the only hope we have here, regardless of who is in office.

[Mercy4Me]

Just to set the record straight...I'm neither a republican, a democrat, or a libertarian. I vote for whoever I think the best candidate is, which is a challenge in this day and age.

I don't think C.S. Lewis was referring to the American democratic party and several people have referenced the quote quite well. I just thought it was interesting.

I certainly am post-assembly and probably pretty "anti" any form of Christianity that is smugly arrogant about their form of rightness complete with chapter and verse. It shows up on this website sometimes and makes me cringe. I am drawn to humility in Christian gatherings not their doctrinal perfection. Humility is the odor of Christ for me.

[editor]

Just to set the record straight...I'm neither a republican, a democrat, or a libertarian. I vote for whoever I think the best candidate is, which is a challenge in this day and age.

I don't think C.S. Lewis was referring to the American democratic party and several people have referenced the quote quite well. I just thought it was interesting.

I certainly am post-assembly and probably pretty "anti" any form of Christianity that is smugly arrogant about their form of rightness complete with chapter and verse. It shows up on this website sometimes and makes me cringe. I am drawn to humility in Christian gatherings not their doctrinal perfection. Humility is the odor of Christ for me.

I was aware that CS Lewis wasn't talking about American politics.  I was just going out on a limb, assuming that you had been re-evaluating your own political leanings.  I was merely trying to draw you into conversation about it.

I agree with you that it is an interesting quote.

It's pretty obvious that alot of people need a good dose of humility here on the website.

My personal goal is to be humble enough to enjoy the company of smug, arrogant Christians.  The church I attend now has parts that smell really good, and others not so good, at least that's how it seems to me.  This helps me grow in my ability to bear with arrogant brethren.  I can relate to them, because I used to be arrogant too.  Now that I've been out of The Assembly for 4 years, I'm way more humble than I used to be.

I'm happy that Jesus loves the ones that seem smug, as well as the ones who are humble.  When I think of how messed up the people are on this website, I take comfort in that.

As for me, I'm of the same opinion as you.  I'm anti pride, and pro-humility.  Doctrine should always be secondary to real, Christ-like humility.  People who have it the other way 'round are really missing the boat.

Anyways, I like talking about all kinds of stuff, and some of my current favorites are sailing, poker, politics and the movie, Napolean Dynamite.

I was just hoping you had some interesting revelations regarding your political beliefs to share.

Brent

[al Hartman]

   Liberty and freedom are the best vehicles for spreading the gospel...

One would think this is true-- it certainly seems reasonable; makes sense.  And yet, 200+ years of the greatest liberty and freedom the world has ever known have brought America to the present burgeoning anti-christian society that surrounds us, seeking to, and seeming to succeed at, watering down and shutting down the preaching of the gospel.

Historically, God appears to have used persecution to promote furtherance of the gospel-- certainly Christians have shined brightest when persecuted for their faith.  (Perhaps one of our resident historians would elaborate on this point, or correct me if I'm mistaken.)  It is entirely possible that the present hostile conditions may give birth to a revival of Christianity in western society.

   ...and the gospel is the only hope we have here, regardless of who is in office.

Amen, Brother!  "We here," and anyone else anywhere.  How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation...

[Oscar]

Brent,

You said,

Anyways, I am now a Libertarian.  The fastest growing aspect of the party is from Evangelical Christians.

Libertarianism grew out of Ayn Rand's philosophy of "Objectivism".  Its fundamental assumptions are materialism and atheism.  Most of the folks that you hear referred to as "Neo-Cons" (neo-conservatives) are of this ilk.

Rand claimed that she could deduce moral values on the basis of reason alone.  Although there are still Randians claiming this, such as Leonard Peikoff, it is a bogus claim.

When I talk to libertarians I just listen until they make an assertion such as "everyone owns themselves" or "there should be no social wellfare system", and then I ask them "How do you know that is true?"

The answer is usually, "what?", or perhaps another assertion of unsupported "fact".  In other words, these folks ascribe to a set of values that they have created themselves.

I don't mean to say that they are never right.  What I am saying is that they are basing their political philosophy on a foundation nothing more than "X is true because I say it is true."

One example is the libertarian belief that drugs like heroin and cocain should be legal.  The libertarians support this idea on the basis that "everyone owns his own body and has the right to do with it as he wishes".  However, as a Christian I have always believed that God owns everyone's body. And that everyone is responsible to God for the stewardship of their body.  

I furthur believe that human societies should reflect the will of the sovereign of the universe.  The reason that they don't is that man is fallen and usually in rebellion against God.  So, when I see a law regulating drug use, I agree with it at least in principle, if not in every detail, because it promotes a true moral value.

I am well aware that many Evangelicals are disappointed that they cannot control the Republican party and have advocated a third party approach.  Libertarians, at first glance, look a lot like Conservatives due to their many shared values.  So, many conservative Evangelicals are attracted to them.

I am not.  This is for two reasons; First, I believe that morality must be grounded in belief in God. The founders of the philosophy and party frequently do not share that belief.  Second, I detect a strong nihilistic vein in their thought that would lead to a very different America from the one we and our ancestors lived in.  I'm not sure at all that that America would be a nice place.

A political party, to be successful, must appeal to a broad range of people. Third parties never do that.  When they have some success, it is usually because of a popular candidate, like Teddy Roosevelt, who ran for a third term as a "Bull Moose", or Ross Perot.

 I have been a Democrat, an Independent, and a Republican. For now, I will remain a Republican since they reflect my values better than the others.  But, as Churchill said, "Politics is the art of the possible."  No political party will ever perfectly reflect Biblical morality, or good sense either.

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Brent,

You said,

Anyways, I am now a Libertarian.  The fastest growing aspect of the party is from Evangelical Christians.

Libertarianism grew out of Ayn Rand's philosophy of "Objectivism".  Its fundamental assumptions are materialism and atheism.  Most of the folks that you hear referred to as "Neo-Cons" (neo-conservatives) are of this ilk.

Rand claimed that she could deduce moral values on the basis of reason alone.  Although there are still Randians claiming this, such as Leonard Peikoff, it is a bogus claim.

When I talk to libertarians I just listen until they make an assertion such as "everyone owns themselves" or "there should be no social wellfare system", and then I ask them "How do you know that is true?"

The answer is usually, "what?", or perhaps another assertion of unsupported "fact".  In other words, these folks ascribe to a set of values that they have created themselves.

I don't mean to say that they are never right.  What I am saying is that they are basing their political philosophy on a foundation nothing more than "X is true because I say it is true."

One example is the libertarian belief that drugs like heroin and cocain should be legal.  The libertarians support this idea on the basis that "everyone owns his own body and has the right to do with it as he wishes".  However, as a Christian I have always believed that God owns everyone's body. And that everyone is responsible to God for the stewardship of their body.  

I furthur believe that human societies should reflect the will of the sovereign of the universe.  The reason that they don't is that man is fallen and usually in rebellion against God.  So, when I see a law regulating drug use, I agree with it at least in principle, if not in every detail, because it promotes a true moral value.

I am well aware that many Evangelicals are disappointed that they cannot control the Republican party and have advocated a third party approach.  Libertarians, at first glance, look a lot like Conservatives due to their many shared values.  So, many conservative Evangelicals are attracted to them.

I am not.  This is for two reasons; First, I believe that morality must be grounded in belief in God. The founders of the philosophy and party frequently do not share that belief.  Second, I detect a strong nihilistic vein in their thought that would lead to a very different America from the one we and our ancestors lived in.  I'm not sure at all that that America would be a nice place.

A political party, to be successful, must appeal to a broad range of people. Third parties never do that.  When they have some success, it is usually because of a popular candidate, like Teddy Roosevelt, who ran for a third term as a "Bull Moose", or Ross Perot.

 I have been a Democrat, an Independent, and a Republican. For now, I will remain a Republican since they reflect my values better than the others.  But, as Churchill said, "Politics is the art of the possible."  No political party will ever perfectly reflect Biblical morality, or good sense either.

Thomas Maddux

I know you feel that way.  No problem.

Anyhow, this isn't the place to discuss it.  This is about quotes to ponder!

Just to steer us away from massive thread drift, Ill say one thing, and if you wish to discuss it, start a new thread.

Most Libertarians advocate exactly the same thing that the founding fathers did, freedom.  We are not nihilistic at all, although we have our share of kooks, which have been the focus for a long time.  

The best way to keep us down, if you are a republican or democrat, is to mis-represent what we stand for, and make sure that it sticks.

BTW, did you know that the first law concerning Marijuana was a legal mandate to make sure that farmers produced a certain amount every year?  

Drugs and alchohol were legal in George Washington's day.

Brent

[Mercy4Me]

Just to set the record straight...I'm neither a republican, a democrat, or a libertarian. I vote for whoever I think the best candidate is, which is a challenge in this day and age.

I don't think C.S. Lewis was referring to the American democratic party and several people have referenced the quote quite well. I just thought it was interesting.

I certainly am post-assembly and probably pretty "anti" any form of Christianity that is smugly arrogant about their form of rightness complete with chapter and verse. It shows up on this website sometimes and makes me cringe. I am drawn to humility in Christian gatherings not their doctrinal perfection. Humility is the odor of Christ for me.

I was aware that CS Lewis wasn't talking about American politics.  I was just going out on a limb, assuming that you had been re-evaluating your own political leanings.  I was merely trying to draw you into conversation about it.

I agree with you that it is an interesting quote.

It's pretty obvious that alot of people need a good dose of humility here on the website.

My personal goal is to be humble enough to enjoy the company of smug, arrogant Christians.  The church I attend now has parts that smell really good, and others not so good, at least that's how it seems to me.  This helps me grow in my ability to bear with arrogant brethren.  I can relate to them, because I used to be arrogant too.  Now that I've been out of The Assembly for 4 years, I'm way more humble than I used to be.

I'm happy that Jesus loves the ones that seem smug, as well as the ones who are humble.  When I think of how messed up the people are on this website, I take comfort in that.

As for me, I'm of the same opinion as you.  I'm anti pride, and pro-humility.  Doctrine should always be secondary to real, Christ-like humility.  People who have it the other way 'round are really missing the boat.

Anyways, I like talking about all kinds of stuff, and some of my current favorites are sailing, poker, politics and the movie, Napolean Dynamite.

I was just hoping you had some interesting revelations regarding your political beliefs to share.

Brent

Brent,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that having left the assembly behind has helped me also to see the arrogance and pigheaded ways that I thought were so positively biblically correct. It's embarrassing, but the result is that I have a newfound appreciation for men and women of God who are not like that and I hope more patience with people like myself, or least the person I was awhile ago!
I have always appreciated the balance you lend to this board. I will probably not share too many personal opinions here. It has been pretty obvious that when someone shares opinions that  ________(fill in the blank) doesn't agree with he becomes insulting and/or demeaning...not always, but enough of the time that it makes sharing seem pretty pointless.
Anyway, I just saw Napoleon Dynamite - pretty hysterical.
M4M

[editor]

Just to set the record straight...I'm neither a republican, a democrat, or a libertarian. I vote for whoever I think the best candidate is, which is a challenge in this day and age.

I don't think C.S. Lewis was referring to the American democratic party and several people have referenced the quote quite well. I just thought it was interesting.

I certainly am post-assembly and probably pretty "anti" any form of Christianity that is smugly arrogant about their form of rightness complete with chapter and verse. It shows up on this website sometimes and makes me cringe. I am drawn to humility in Christian gatherings not their doctrinal perfection. Humility is the odor of Christ for me.

I was aware that CS Lewis wasn't talking about American politics.  I was just going out on a limb, assuming that you had been re-evaluating your own political leanings.  I was merely trying to draw you into conversation about it.

I agree with you that it is an interesting quote.

It's pretty obvious that alot of people need a good dose of humility here on the website.

My personal goal is to be humble enough to enjoy the company of smug, arrogant Christians.  The church I attend now has parts that smell really good, and others not so good, at least that's how it seems to me.  This helps me grow in my ability to bear with arrogant brethren.  I can relate to them, because I used to be arrogant too.  Now that I've been out of The Assembly for 4 years, I'm way more humble than I used to be.

I'm happy that Jesus loves the ones that seem smug, as well as the ones who are humble.  When I think of how messed up the people are on this website, I take comfort in that.

As for me, I'm of the same opinion as you.  I'm anti pride, and pro-humility.  Doctrine should always be secondary to real, Christ-like humility.  People who have it the other way 'round are really missing the boat.

Anyways, I like talking about all kinds of stuff, and some of my current favorites are sailing, poker, politics and the movie, Napolean Dynamite.

I was just hoping you had some interesting revelations regarding your political beliefs to share.

Brent

Brent,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that having left the assembly behind has helped me also to see the arrogance and pigheaded ways that I thought were so positively biblically correct. It's embarrassing, but the result is that I have a newfound appreciation for men and women of God who are not like that and I hope more patience with people like myself, or least the person I was awhile ago!
I have always appreciated the balance you lend to this board. I will probably not share too many personal opinions here. It has been pretty obvious that when someone shares opinions that  ________(fill in the blank) doesn't agree with he becomes insulting and/or demeaning...not always, but enough of the time that it makes sharing seem pretty pointless.
Anyway, I just saw Napoleon Dynamite - pretty hysterical.
M4M

Hi M,

Much of my post was slightly tongue in cheek, but not the part about Napoloean Dynamite.

What I was getting at, in an obtuse way, was that I used to be arrogant, as you described, then I got arrogantly humble, basically looking down on the arrogant assembly types, with my newly aquired humility.

I used to arrogantly despise the humble for not being serious, or not being real students of the Word, or for not going the way of the cross, etc.

Then, I saw the folly of my ways and began to despise those who were like I was, a few years earlier...same problem, different viewpoint.

Now, I am beginning to see that there are all types of people in the church, and I don't want to despise any of them.  

Humble, proud, doctrinal, experiential, ignorant, happy, serious....Jesus loves them all.

In my own life, there was a large pendulum swing from arrogant to "humble" to humbly arrogant, etc.  This is, I think rather common to people who went through what we did.

We need to eventually find balance, which will take time.

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

OK, no problem.  Here are some "Quotes to Ponder."  As you can see, I am not misrepresenting anyone.  


Here, for example, is the Libertarian Party's position on welfare reform:

.
"End Welfare
None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.
It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.
We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. "

Here is their view on drug legalization:

"It's time to re-legalize drugs and let people take responsibility for themselves. Drug abuse is a tragedy and a sickness. Criminal laws only drive the problem underground and put money in the pockets of the criminal class. With drugs legal, compassionate people could do more to educate and rehabilitate drug users who seek help. Drugs should be legal. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions."

Here are their ideas on immigration:

"he Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout. "

If you really believe that this represents the position of the founding fathers, you are mistaken.

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Brent,

OK, no problem.  Here are some "Quotes to Ponder."  As you can see, I am not misrepresenting anyone.  


Here, for example, is the Libertarian Party's position on welfare reform:

.
"End Welfare
None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.
It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.
We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. "

Here is their view on drug legalization:

"It's time to re-legalize drugs and let people take responsibility for themselves. Drug abuse is a tragedy and a sickness. Criminal laws only drive the problem underground and put money in the pockets of the criminal class. With drugs legal, compassionate people could do more to educate and rehabilitate drug users who seek help. Drugs should be legal. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions."

Here are their ideas on immigration:

"he Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout. "

If you really believe that this represents the position of the founding fathers, you are mistaken.

Thomas Maddux

I agree wholeheartedly with all three of those positions!

Let's discuss it on another thread.

Brent

[outdeep]

Tom (or anyone else):

We moved from postmodern churches to libertarians.  That's OK - it's the nature of the BB beast.  However, any thoughts on my postmodern comments below?  

-Dave

[Oscar]

Tom (or anyone else):

We moved from postmodern churches to libertarians.  That's OK - it's the nature of the BB beast.  However, any thoughts on my postmodern comments below?  

-Dave

Dave,

IMHO much of the postmodern yak is nothing more than folks who don't know what they are talking about trying to sound sophisticated, or worse, trying to justify their evil acts.

I have read a couple of articles by post-modernist "theologians" blabbing about how God is known through cultural grids.  Like many "new" ideas this has some truth in it.  The problem is when one makes it the great interpretive principle by which all else is understood.  I haven't pursued this though.

When I was in my final years of teaching I began to encounter young teachers who had been taught to believe that we construct our own reality in our heads, and no one else's reality is any more "real" than the one my crowd likes.

I used to ask them, "If that is true, why do you always head for the same hole in the wall, (door), I do when it is time to go to class?"  They usually would answer with "huh?"  It wouldn't be long before they would have to admit that we do not create the physical world that we live in.  

But, as true believers they would always go on to a bunch of David Mauldin style preaching about what is wrong with anyone who disagrees with their politics and (lack of) morality.  All post-modernism is in this area is an extreme form of moral relativism...nothing really new.

So, I would always ask them what makes things right or wrong.  When they answered that the community "story" is determinative, I would always ask if the other guy's community had the right to make up its own "story".  They have to admit this, or deny their own position. (btw, this would also mean that all church practices are equally legitimate).

So, it was always quite easy to show them that their position was self-contradictory and self-refuting.  Never made much difference though...they went right on preaching about what was wrong with moral people and why abortion, homosexualtiy, etc. was OK.

Their beliefs are grounded in antithapy towards God, not rationality.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux