MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[revelarts]

Trying to play semantics with me? Tsk tsk Jesus chose to teach the people, not reform government.

Within the context of the conversation, reformation of government and what it would take, yes. The primary logic to my statement eludes you: in a totalitarian government, you have no religion to preach and even more likely no one to preach it to. Secure the right to spread God's Word and you have the right to do so anywhere anytime to whoever chooses to listen.

Ok, so keeping it in context.
which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?
and is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?

Also... how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it.

[Kathianne]

Ok, so keeping it in context.
which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?
and is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?

Also... how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it.

To me, you're now offering another problem altogether. Trying to figure out the candidates religious mindsets or heaven forbid their true beliefs.

So many self-pronounced righteous Christians voted for Trump. Wasn't there a more religious fellow out of the gazillion candidates? Then again, I've no clue to Trump's or anyone else's real beliefs. Between them and God.

Most people running for president aren't exactly my choice in role models. I do prefer one though that will at least pay lip service to societal norms, though those are fading fast.

[revelarts]

To me, you're now offering another problem altogether. Trying to figure out the candidates religious mindsets or heaven forbid their true beliefs.

....

But I didn't ask about "candidates religious mindsets or heaven forbid their true beliefs"

I asked
"which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?"

and
"is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?"

Also...
"how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it?"


None of those have to do with trying to judge/divine a candidate's heart/personal belief, just his or her actions and intents.
As pointed out the Roger Williams quotes, there are plenty of people who don't have religious beliefs but still promote things that ALIGN with them.
I've never said that only religious people should be in office. I'm not sure why that's not clear.
What i've said is that the roots/basis of the ideals, rights and freedoms are Christian. And those ideals etc need to be promoted and the history known at some point. And it should be recognized that without that religious base the concepts are not as strong. And cannot be defended logically. They can be defended emotionally & based on "traditions". but not logically.
At least not any more logically than the idea of everyone having a "right" to eat cake or a "right" to a 2 story house.

[Kathianne]

But I didn't ask about "candidates religious mindsets or heaven forbid their true beliefs"

I asked
"which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?"

and
"is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?"

Also...
"how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it?"


None of those have to do with trying to judge/divine a candidate's heart/personal belief, just his or her actions and intents.
As pointed out the Roger Williams quotes, there are plenty of people who don't have religious beliefs but still promote things that ALIGN with them.
I've never said that only religious people should be in office. I'm not sure why that's not clear.
What i've said is that the roots/basis of the ideals, rights and freedoms are Christian. And those ideals etc need to be promoted and the history known at some point. And it should be recognized that without that religious base the concepts are not as strong. And cannot be defended logically. They can be defended emotionally & based on "traditions". but not logically.
At least not any more logically than the idea of everyone having a "right" to eat cake or a "right" to a 2 story house.

Your critique of my post is spot on. I got stuck on previous.

I don't have a good feel for most of these contestants yet.

Between Biden and Trump I have to look at their 1st amendment behaviors and I find Biden is worse by far in action.

I suppose my worry here is how many actually have paid attention to actions?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

To me a candidate should be first looked at his political record. Next in that vein his personal behavior. And third if he has a religious belief -asking what it is.
Granted that may eliminate most of them if not all.
If so with the all, then vote for the least offensive one.
Or rather which one fits with ones own preferences about things (/law/government) that are important to either the nation or ones own personal beliefs.--Tyr

[Gunny]

Ok, so keeping it in context.
which of the current presidential candidates do you think will do the most to promote freedom... including religious freedoms?
and is that a primary criteria you think religious people (even ones that don't want to talk about it) should be using to select a candidate?

Also... how should such a candidate communicate those intentions ....without saying anything about it.

The point to the thread from my porch is a situation and possible solution in a generalized manner. It is not an immediate fix, nor does it tie into current events. The method described in the videos is basically the creation of a bottom-up (grass roots) parallel society that over time overwhelms and chokes out a (semi)authoritarian one. It doesn't tear down original intent, law, nor construct; rather, replaces current cancer with healthy people.

I do not see any current candidate as especially qualified to have any position of power or leadership in such a scenario. Current neoliberals making comprising both parties generally support the system as it is. The system as it is is replacing written law and the ideal of America with itself.

Returning the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land guarantees freedom of religion. As far as candidates not talking about religion, I do not know of one that has not nor is that what anyone is saying. We're saying that law cannot be based on religion and appeal to a majority.

An example is: I want to accomplish all of the above, AND I'm going to base it on Southern Baptist Doctrine. No? You want it based on YOUR religion? I already read a good dose of what Kathianne thinks of Southern Baptists in another thread . THIS never gets enough traction to roll downhill backward out of the driveway. It devolves into religious bickering immediately.

Using law instead of religion can sell across the board. Across the board is what one wishes to achieve when discussing mass movement.

[Kathianne]

The point to the thread from my porch is a situation and possible solution in a generalized manner. It is not an immediate fix, nor does it tie into current events. The method described in the videos is basically the creation of a bottom-up (grass roots) parallel society that over time overwhelms and chokes out a (semi)authoritarian one. It doesn't tear down original intent, law, nor construct; rather, replaces current cancer with healthy people.

I do not see any current candidate as especially qualified to have any position of power or leadership in such a scenario. Current neoliberals making comprising both parties generally support the system as it is. The system as it is is replacing written law and the ideal of America with itself.

Returning the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land guarantees freedom of religion. As far as candidates not talking about religion, I do not know of one that has not nor is that what anyone is saying. We're saying that law cannot be based on religion and appeal to a majority.

An example is: I want to accomplish all of the above, AND I'm going to base it on Southern Baptist Doctrine. No? You want it based on YOUR religion? I already read a good dose of what Kathianne thinks of Southern Baptists in another thread . THIS never gets enough traction to roll downhill backward out of the driveway. It devolves into religious bickering immediately.

Using law instead of religion can sell across the board. Across the board is what one wishes to achieve when discussing mass movement.

Actually my first target of protestants would be German Lutherans, not exactly Evangelicals. The latter hit my radar much later in life, less than personal and their more generalized hate on any not seeing God reflected in their vision.

Mind you, I know very good people in both belief systems, but have an overwhelming desire to bunch folks up in return to their doing the same. I'm very much a love each other until there's reasons not to. I know Jesus would not be happy with my attitude much of the time.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

all the payola that corrupts the government comes from globalist financial institutions that are profitizing destruction and division, and rewarding evil.

while i could theorically being on board with some form of greater global order, the current one being created now is definitely a creation of demons.

we want totalitarianism against pedo. and we actually want cops too, with significant stopping power. we're not animals. we just also want tariffs and america first trade policy.

this is not too much to ask far.

this used to be called just being a country.

you people have changed.

Far too much of this is true. the globalists have billions to play around with. They infest everything that gives them what they want. Money is no object when it comes to buying people.
And when money doesnt work they use heavy handed tactics which include executing those not saying yes to them. a fact. --Tyr

[revelarts]

The point to the thread from my porch is a situation and possible solution in a generalized manner. It is not an immediate fix, nor does it tie into current events. The method described in the videos is basically the creation of a bottom-up (grass roots) parallel society that over time overwhelms and chokes out a (semi)authoritarian one. It doesn't tear down original intent, law, nor construct; rather, replaces current cancer with healthy people.

I do not see any current candidate as especially qualified to have any position of power or leadership in such a scenario. Current neoliberals making comprising both parties generally support the system as it is. The system as it is is replacing written law and the ideal of America with itself.

Returning the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land guarantees freedom of religion. As far as candidates not talking about religion, I do not know of one that has not nor is that what anyone is saying. We're saying that law cannot be based on religion and appeal to a majority.

An example is: I want to accomplish all of the above, AND I'm going to base it on Southern Baptist Doctrine. No? You want it based on YOUR religion? I already read a good dose of what Kathianne thinks of Southern Baptists in another thread . THIS never gets enough traction to roll downhill backward out of the driveway. It devolves into religious bickering immediately.

Using law instead of religion can sell across the board. Across the board is what one wishes to achieve when discussing mass movement.

Ok 1st,
I've been on this board A LOT of years too, can you remember any NEW laws I've proposed... as a former Baptist I can't speak for them But I've always pleaded for LESS laws less Gov't.
2nd,
What "baptist doctrine" are you and kath afraid Baptist are going to press into law? When they come into ultimate power. Ladies have to wear hats?

But OK, In away I hear you, I guess my problem with the way it's put is that when people say don't bring "religion" into law.
It basically tells me I'm not allowed to have input into laws. My faith says everything I do or promote has a "religious" connotation.
For many "religious" people that's the general POV.

And more specifically at this point if I say. "there's only male & female." then that can be... has been... categorizes as a purely religious view.
Same with the idea of keeping porn out of school libraries.
Homosexual marriage, Do I or baptist, have a legal right to promote my view in civil law since mine is mainly a "religious view"?
Euthanasia laws, I have no opinion or voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Death penalty laws, I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Gun rights, Gun laws, I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is a "religious view"?
Right to worship or free speech Do I have no opinion of voice in civil law because mine is based in a "religious view"?
MLK was preacher, no right to speak morally or from a religious POV on human & civil rights? Should his "baptist doctrine"?
War? only secular reasons allowed in the discussion... made into the law?

For at least some Christian people nearly EVERY issue that's brought up as law is a "religious" issue.
Because laws that are important ARE moral.

Do we have to SAY that explicitly or try to convince others simply based on that. NO.
When Gabby showed up 'out of the blue' with some junk about abortion I posted a list of medical quotes showing life begins at conception.
Not a list of Bible verses.
And i'll add this, before I became a Christian I was selfishly pro-choice. But I wouldn't lift a finger or say a word to defend it, other than voting for people who would. A few Christians did talk to me about abortion. From a moral, Bible and the Science perspective and i was honest enough to keep my mouth shut, KNOWING I had no moral or good scientific defense. but I still voted pro-choice.
But Personally I had no problem with Christians voting based on their beliefs. It never crossed my mind that they could not or should vote based on their beliefs. Or not be able to promote their beliefs as law. I never felt any more oppressed/pressured by unreasonable Christians than i had by liberals who wanted me to change what I ate or how i handle my trash and Cars etc to "save the planet". Both made demands based on Moral appeals and "BELIEFS". Non-Christian flag waving patriots the same. "be a REAL man, Fight & die for the country because its the greatest eveh evah in the world!!" Even libertarians make moral claims and expect people to BUY them on FAITH. I've never seen "religious" claims as outside of the pale. In fact to be honest they made more sense to me than the flag waving, cry at the anthem, patriotism when i considered ALL of U.S. history and not just the noble parts.

My point here I guess is this, on many issues the points turn on someone's understanding of reality. INCLUDING so called "religious" understandings.
People are in different places and we have to be EXTREMELY careful when we say .. "don't bring religion into it" especially if it's "for the greater good".


BTW
Hitler wanted to get religion out of politics too, he became the religion.
Stalin wanted to get religion out of politics, the state became the religion.
Mao same as Stalin.
French revolution "Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity", we agree on those basics right? They wanted to get religion out of politics too.
didn't turn out so good.
Hitler co-oped the churches (they let themselves be co-oped)
Stalin, Mao, and Robespeire Killed a lot of Clergy... plenty of Roman Catholic priest & nuns.

just sayin'

[fj1200]

But OK, In away I hear you, I guess my problem with the way it's putis that when people say don't bring "religion" into law.
It basically tells me I'm not allowed to have input into laws. My faith says everything I do or promote has a "religious" connotation.
For many "religious" people that's the general POV.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.

[revelarts]

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.

If someone says we should not make any laws that are based in my "religion", that's what I hear.
Since all of my legal and moral decisions, legal proposals, are ultimately based there or filtered through there.

(frankly It's one reason I'm for LIMITED gov't, outlined in the constitution, so that people have more personal freedom. NOT being under the thumb of ANY single ideology.)

[fj1200]

If someone says we should not make any laws that are based in my "religion", that's what I hear.
Since all of my legal and moral decisions, legal proposals, are ultimately based there or filtered through there.

I was referring to DP specifically but if you propose a law be prepared that it doesn't pass for various reasons constitutional, societal, etc. And if you do propose said law be prepared with other rationale than, "God said so."

[revelarts]

I was referring to DP specifically but if you propose a law be prepared that it doesn't pass for various reasons constitutional, societal, etc. And if you do propose said law be prepared with other rationale than, "God said so."

Ok 1st,
I've been on this board A LOT of years too, can you remember any NEW laws I've proposed... as a former Baptist I can't speak for them But I've always pleaded for LESS laws less Gov't.
2nd,
What "baptist doctrine" are Gunny and Kath afraid Baptist are going to press into law? When they come into ultimate power. Ladies have to wear hats?"


(frankly It's one reason I'm for LIMITED gov't, outlined in the constitution, so that people have more personal freedom. NOT being under the thumb of ANY single ideology.)[/I][

[Kathianne]

If someone says we should not make any laws that are based in my "religion", that's what I hear.
Since all of my legal and moral decisions, legal proposals, are ultimately based there or filtered through there.

The same could be said of any of us, you don't actually know.

I say, "Good morning, Rev.!" Perhaps in my head I also say, 'God bless you.' For any number of reasons, including respect for the fact I don't know your beliefs, I choose to not verbalize. Nothing wrong with that. I believe you're better off with my calling on a blessing for you.

Now, if we are friends, real friends. We'd both be aware of our beliefs, to a lesser or greater degree. I do not have that level of intimacy with neighbors, acquaintances, fellow workers, etc.

We live in a pluralistic society-if one wants a more hemogenic society you'd have to seek it out.

[Kathianne]

Ok 1st,
I've been on this board A LOT of years too, can you remember any NEW laws I've proposed... as a former Baptist I can't speak for them But I've always pleaded for LESS laws less Gov't.
2nd,
What "baptist doctrine" are Gunny and Kath afraid Baptist are going to press into law? When they come into ultimate power. Ladies have to wear hats?"

(frankly It's one reason I'm for LIMITED gov't, outlined in the constitution, so that people have more personal freedom. NOT being under the thumb of ANY single ideology.)

I'm pretty sure I never said anything about any religion trying to make laws. I said I wouldn't want that.