FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
C'mon.
Wikipedia's article on the subject appears roughly two thousand years out of date, if you have information I do not. A quick search indicates claims that some group has announced that they've appointed a new "high priest" recently, but gives no indication why I should consider this appointment religiously valid.
Also, Jewish prayers refer to the sacrifices in the Temple even if actual sacrifices are not possible.
Why would references to non-existent temple sacrifices in a non-existent temple satisfy the requirements of a Covenant that explicitly specified actual sacrifices in an actual tabernacle/temple? For that matter, why haven't they just fabricated a tabernacle? Not that this would be valid either, given the absence of the ark and the spirit of God seated upon it, but it would at least be a step in the correct direction, no?
I'm sure committed Jews have many answers to such questions, but I am not a committed Jew, and I am not required to believe as they do. My understanding is that the old Covenant was broken irrevocably with the destruction of the temple and the end of covenant practice in AD 70. If modern Jews disagree, that is between them and God. Meanwhile, the new Covenant I believe I enjoy with God has a number of requirements, but none command political support for a Jewish nation. This is all slop-millenarianism nonsense.
Yahweh is not synonymous with Jews. Yahweh frequently demonstrates his supremacy by cursing and punishing the Jews, according to the Jews' own scriptures. As for the Christian perspective, "We must obey God rather than men", told to the Jewish authorities by the fathers of the Church. Nor, IIRC, did the early Christians defend Jerusalem from the Romans, and there's a solid argument that they were following Jesus's instructions when they declined to do so.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
20hr ago
In Genesis God promises Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse".
Yes. How does this promise to Abraham overwrite the numerous subsequent and far more detailed formal covenants God makes with the Israelites throughout the rest of the Old Testament? It is you and Mike Huckabee who are not taking the text seriously. Those of us who do are not greatly troubled by this notion, and have not been for centuries.
Carlson says "Oh I, uh, don't curse Israel because Gold told me not too, I just don't think Netanyahu is a real Jew or Israel is the Israel mentioned by God."
There is no particular reason to believe that post-sack-of-Jerusalem Judiasm is a valid continuation of the previous religion. There is likewise no particular reason to believe that the modern state of Israel is in any metaphysical sense the valid successor to the ancient state of Israel. The temple is gone. The Ark is gone. The Altar is gone. There are no sacrifices any more. There are, as far as I'm aware, no priests. No holy-of-holies, and so on. You are attempting to justify a scriptural interpretation that holds up one verse and shoves down a thousand other verses, as though this one verse were the entirety of the bible. This is a very bad way to do scriptural interpretation, but again, your interest does not appear to be in accurately understanding the will of God or even the text as a literary document, but exclusively pushing your monomaniacal agenda.
He is pigeon-holed into this anti-semitic canards that don't get to the truth of it: that is hostile foreign propaganda-myth, it's not true.
So he's stupid for believing his sort of anti-semitism when really he should prefer your sort of antisemitism? Have fun with that.
Meanwhile, in the real world, serious belief in Christianity does not require one to be a Zionist. The prominence of Christian Zionism is a historical fluke emerging from a confluence of social factors, it has largely run its course, and it will not, I think, be coming back in the future.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
22hr ago
Leviticus 26 is Yahweh telling the jews that if they fail to obey him, he will punish them grievously. Your model is that worship of Yahweh requires worship of the jews, but Leviticus 26 demonstrates that Yahweh himself states that the Jews suffering under a curse is part of his will. Why should I as a Christian commit to protecting Israel if God himself has stated it is his will that they not be protected?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
22hr ago
You don't need to go into new law/old law. the old law itself is incompatible with SS's claims.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
23hr ago
The most unfortunate part is that what you call the "strawman" of Christian Zionism is actually the only internally coherent position a Christian can hold...
This is an absurd statement on multiple levels.
As a bare existence proof, it's notable that most of the history of Christianity as a religion, it has not exhibited anything approaching the strawman behavior you are claiming is required for internal consistency.
In terms of actual theology, your claim appears flatly incompatible with the 26th chapter of Leviticus, as well as many, many, many other passages. You do not actually know what you are talking about even a little. You are hostile toward jews and you want everyone else to be more hostile toward jews; you say whatever you think will nudge those listening in the direction of greater hostility.
I meant in the sense that I'm neither a lower class Indonesian or a lower class white British man so I don't have a direct dog in the race.
One notes that it is possible to be interested in axes of identity other than class, and judging by your comment history it seems clear that you pretty clearly adhere to such interests, between a thin veneer of self-interested line-go-up markets cheerleading.
No reason why Amelia in the UK who has a job making and serving mediocre coffee should get paid any more than Mehmet making and serving mediocre coffee in Ankara.
Is Indonesia as wealthy per-capita as the UK? Is the wealth of Indonesia roughly equivalent in terms of concentration within the population? That would at least potentially be two reasons why Amelia should be paid more than Mehmet.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
More importantly, though, because even among the people who do favor a more technocratic approach, almost nobody would claim that “man can be perfected (that’s not the point), and even the very few who would still believe that such an outcome is only possible far into a theoretical future.
...And yet, we very clearly have a large, cohesive population of people enthralled to vast, superhuman "processes" that were instituted for nakedly utopian goals, continue to operate in the same way they have since their foundation, and at no point changed goals. These processes observably square the circle by continuously adding epicycles between where they are and the goal, rather than admitting the original goal was unachievable and abandoning the effort. See the war on poverty and blank slate education for two notorious examples.
A commenter here once argued to me that affirmative action and other forms of anti-racist government intervention should be implemented for at least three centuries before we could really draw conclusions on whether they worked or not. How does that sort of mindset differ from Utopianism specifically in the actions it produces?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
I think this is a fair-enough way to divide "soldier" and "warrior", but a lot of people who are using the term and see value in the term are not using it in this way. Particularly, I think the people arguing that a "warrior ethos" is needed are arguing based on something pretty close to the logic above, and not on occupation or social class. Likewise, it seems to me that they often argue that warrior ethos should be taught/acculturated, not merely located.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
Maybe the problem is your conception of the term?
What I observe in this thread:
A - "people wanting a 'Warrior Ethos' is stupid. Why would people want it? Warriors are violent and dangerous, we want less of them."
B - "Because Warrior Ethos is not primarily about being violent and dangerous. It's a term for an approach to handling unbounded chaos that is generally useful in all manners of high-stakes, high-demand endeavors. War is just one of the most high-stakes, high-demand endeavors, so it's the trope-namer."
A - "If it isn't about being violent and dangerous, then warrior is a bad name for it."
See here, also.
Can anyone charitably explain this "warrior" obsession?
My civilian understanding:
"Soldier" is centered on process, regulation, drill, standardization, War as science/industry.
"Warrior" is centered on prowess, performance, results, war as, for lack of a better term, art, an anti-inductive, chaotic process that cannot adequately be codified.
Soldiers typically generate success by consistently stacking small advantages and snowballing them into an insurmountable advantage.
Soldiers typically generate failure by following the process in situations where the process is a bad fit, or at their worst following a process that is just straightforwardly bad.
Warriors typically generate failure by taking high-risk gambles and losing, and at their worst doing so with "high risk gambles" that are just straightforwardly a bad idea that process would have warned them against taking.
Warriors typically generate success by disrupting the enemy's process, creating out-of-context problems and then capitalizing on the enemy's failure to efficiently manage them.
Look at the American Military over the last few decades, both how it fights and how it sustains itself. Would you say that its biggest problems are coming from following process too loosely, or too tightly? With the caveat that the problem is very complicated, I'd argue the latter. The Navy's current woes seem pretty clearly to arise from a widening gap between process and reality. The Afghanistan/GWOT failure seems pretty clearly to have been a process failure through and through. Failure to anticipate and keep in step with the drone revolution seems to have likewise been a process failure.
This shows up in other fields as well. Take NASA and SpaceX. Which is the better performer? Which fits more easily into "Warrior", and which into "Soldier"?
The people obsessed with "warriors" think we have too much process, past diminishing returns and into straightforward loss, and we need more performance.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
The professionals are roughly equivalent to the Klan in its heyday, and the tourists are roughly equivalent to the populations the Klan emerged from and operated within.
Insurgency seems a reasonable description.
If you disagree with his central thesis, then I welcome actual arguments.
Here you go. My children's bedtime interrupted my furious attempts to edit them into the original post. I left them out of the initial post because I thought they were honestly too obvious to need elaboration, but that's never a good bet.
I don't think "Hard Times Make Strong Men" has to be parsed as "Hard Times Make Strong Men 100% of the time", but given the rest of the meme it should at least mean "Hard Times Make Strong Men more often than good times."
I think the more accurate formulation would be "Hard times make strong men inevitable. Good times make weak men inevitable." This formulation not only seems obviously consonant with my understanding of history, but the reasons why it should be so likewise seem obvious: Good times impose reduced consequences on weak men for their weakness, and greatly reduce the amount of free energy by which strong men might exercise their strength. By contrast, bad times impose many consequences on weakness, and often provide an abundance of free energy through which strength might be exercised, not least the general population's desire to organize their collective power and resources to change things for the better.
But of course, this requires us to take the terms "strong" and "weak", "good" and "bad" seriously. Likewise words like "decadence", which Devereaux seems to believe contain no semantic content of significance, and so declines to even engage with in any meaningful fashion.
If you agree that states usually beat non-states, and rich states usually beat poor states (as you seem to suggest with "not as the expected result") then you agree with the core factual claim of the Fremen Mirage series.
I think a culture can build an effective military force, such that they win a disproportionate number of their engagements, not merely through technocratic KPIs (amount of money available, population size, etc), but through specific cultural features and norms. I think such a culture can then replace those cultural features and norms with a new set, and as a consequence begin to lose a disproportionate number of their engagements, even though it now has more money, more population, and a greater share generally of the technocratic KPIs than it did when it was winning. Further, I think this signal is strong enough that predictions can be made in advance.
By contrast, it seems to me that Devereaux aims to convince his readers that military affairs are largely deterministic, with a layer of luck on top. Therefore, empires are born because they got a streak of good RNG hits, and Empires die because they got a streak of bad RNG hits, and human decisions are not really terribly decisive either way.
In which case what is it that "Hard Times Make Strong Men" means that you find both true and interesting? "Hard Times sometimes Make Strong Men, even if that isn't the way to bet" is trivially true and uninteresting.
"Hard Times make strong men, strong men make good times" is interesting because it provides a firm historical basis for hope. The problems we face are not inevitable, insurmountable. Things can change. Often the hardships we face can shape us to better change them.
"Good times makes weak men, weak men make hard times" is interesting because it warns us that there is no permanent victory, that good times are not stable, that preserving and extending them requires effort and constant vigilance. And this is not a general warning: the hazard is specified, so it can be recognized in advance and action can be taken accordingly.
You claim that Devereaux is (a) wrong and (b) obfuscating this. You have not stated a concrete point where you disagree with him, or a false belief you think he is trying to insinuate. I think he has a very clear agenda (that the set of views about masculinity and martial virtue he calls the "cult of the badass" is widely held, wrong, and actively harmful in a liberal democracy) and his opponents on this thread are the ones trying to obfuscate the actual disagreement.
Here are two paragraphs:
Now, the way this trope, and its contrast between ‘civilized’, ‘soft’ people and the ‘uncivilized’ ‘hard’ Fremen is deployed is often (as we’ll see) pretty crude. A people – say the Greeks – may be the hard Fremen one moment (fighting Persia) and the ‘soft’ people the next (against Rome or Macedon).
A brief search confirms that this "moment" covers two centuries, and the entire point of the meme is that cultures change over time. It's possible that there's a valid argument to be made here, but he's pretty clearly chosen not to make it.
But we may outline some of the ‘virtues’ of the ‘hard men’ sort of Fremen are supposed to have generally. They are supposed to be self-sufficient and unspecialized (often meaning that all men in the society are warriors) whereas other societies are specialized and overly complex (often to mean large parts of it are demilitarized).
Is self-sufficiency and flexibility a bad thing? Is there such a thing as overspecialization or excessive complexity as legible cultural problems? Are the average men in societies, populations, or tribes more or less capable of becoming soldiers en masse, due to the culture they've been shaped by? Does this problem show up even from the perspective of men who appear to, in fact, be quite strong? Fuck that noise, questions are for dweebs! Let's round it to "all men in the society are warriors", that sounds way less complicated.
Fremen are supposed to be unlearned compared to their literate and intellectually decadent foes. Fremen society is supposed to be poor in both resources and infrastructure, compared to their rich and prosperous opponents.
"Literate". Why portray "literate" and "intellectually decadent" as synonyms? Could it be that arguing against "intellectual decadence" is a hell of a lot harder than arguing for the merits of literacy, and so he finds it most convenient to substitute the former for the later? Can we wait two more sentences to find out?
The opposite of Fremenism is almost invariably termed ‘decadence.’ This is the reserve side of this reductive view of history: not only do hard conditions make for superior people, but that ‘soft’ conditions, associated with complex societies, wealth and book-reading weenies (read: literacy) make for morally inferior people who are consequently worse at fighting. Because we all know that moral purity makes you better at fighting, right? (My non-existent editor would like me to make clear that I am being sarcastic here, and it is extraordinarily obvious that moral virtue does not always lead to battlefield success.)
...And there's your answer.
"moral virtue does not always lead to battlefield success". What a disgusting example of intellectual cowardice.
Nothing always leads to battlefield success, so it's good to see that he's really putting himself out there with the bold claims.
And yet, character, of both leaders and followers, very obviously matters immensely in leadership, and leadership matters immensely in all domains of large-scale human conflict. I am pretty sure that "moral purity", in the sense that he very clearly is framing the term, would not be a very good way of describing the phenomenon, which is why I find his framing choices so execrable. But in actual fact it is obvious that Morale and Morals/virtue/character are pretty clearly linked, and that even central examples of Moral Purity in the sense he frames it have in fact been used historically to build winning armies. Discipline is incredibly important in all forms of military affairs. Commitment. Loyalty. Determination. "The moral is to the physical as three to one." We know what amoral armies look like; there is a reason people don't want to rely on them. And yet, even that last link opens up a whole vista on how morality or its absence change war, how morals/character/virtue cannot be done without, the lengths leaders must go to in generating makeshift analogues in their absence, all in the context of a problem that, by itself, greatly illustrates the reality of decadence as a sociopolitical force.
More recently, we have the truism that "no one is going to fight a war on behalf of an economic zone." While we haven't tested this principle hard yet, I know which way I'd bet.
think he has a very clear agenda (that the set of views about masculinity and martial virtue he calls the "cult of the badass" is widely held, wrong, and actively harmful in a liberal democracy) and his opponents on this thread are the ones trying to obfuscate the actual disagreement.
I reiterate: This is propaganda, and worse it is stupid propaganda. You should not trust him to describe or diagnose "cults" of any description, and you should re-evaluate whatever lessons you have drawn from his writings.
Very briefly, central examples of the "Hard Times Make Strong Men" thesis do not claim that non-states usually beat states, or that poorer states generally beat richer ones. Devereaux is attempting to frame the thesis this way because if he can bake absurdity into his audience's understanding of the argument, then it's all over but the sneering, which is pretty clearly what he's primarily interested in doing.
"Hard Times Make Strong Men" exists as a thesis because we can directly observe that rich, powerful states often actually do decline, that states are defeated by non-states, and rich states are beat by poor states. Not all the time, not as the expected result, but often enough that very clearly wealth, population, or whatever other technocratically legible KPI one prefers are not deterministic. Why is this? What causes upsets? What causes the mighty to decline? What injects mortality into the putatively super-mortal? This is a fascinating question, but Devereaux appears mainly interested in cauterizing such interest in anyone he can, and is enthusiastically willing to employ the argumentative dark arts in doing so.
Here are two paragraphs:
Now, the way this trope, and its contrast between ‘civilized’, ‘soft’ people and the ‘uncivilized’ ‘hard’ Fremen is deployed is often (as we’ll see) pretty crude. A people – say the Greeks – may be the hard Fremen one moment (fighting Persia) and the ‘soft’ people the next (against Rome or Macedon). But we may outline some of the ‘virtues’ of the ‘hard men’ sort of Fremen are supposed to have generally. They are supposed to be self-sufficient and unspecialized (often meaning that all men in the society are warriors) whereas other societies are specialized and overly complex (often to mean large parts of it are demilitarized).
Fremen are supposed to be unlearned compared to their literate and intellectually decadent foes. Fremen society is supposed to be poor in both resources and infrastructure, compared to their rich and prosperous opponents. The opposite of Fremenism is almost invariably termed ‘decadence.’ This is the reserve side of this reductive view of history: not only do hard conditions make for superior people, but that ‘soft’ conditions, associated with complex societies, wealth and book-reading weenies (read: literacy) make for morally inferior people who are consequently worse at fighting. Because we all know that moral purity makes you better at fighting, right? (My non-existent editor would like me to make clear that I am being sarcastic here, and it is extraordinarily obvious that moral virtue does not always lead to battlefield success.)
...This is propaganda. The person writing it likes you stupid. To the extent that you not of my tribe, the more you listen to him, the better for me.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
I remember his "fremen mirage" series, and being left with the strong impression that he was playing word games in an attempt to obfuscate a fundamental reality he found unpalatable. Particularly, his four-part definition in the beginning of the first part more-or-less immediately convinced me that he was not operating in good faith.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8d ago
The problem with most conversations of this sort is that memory exists.
The Jan 6th protestors were also "hilariously incompetent", to the point that they forgot to bring any weapons at all. And yet, this apparent incompetence somehow failed to overshadow "what they were actually trying to do."
It's who, whom. We observably take Red violence seriously, even when it is hypothetical. We observably do not take Blue violence seriously, even (especially?) when there are multiple bodies. This is not an accident. This is the essence of Tribalism.
Normal white Midwesterners don't get his will to power ideology.
Also their women do not like him and he doesn't seem to actually like white women. Really hampering his aspirations to make white children. So he pivots to rationalizing how having kids with Hispanics is okay.
More power to him on that front, but this part:
Compared to my early 20s self, I am a lot less prone to ingrouping with the kind of white people who deliberately shut themselves off from the world by retreating to the ‘burbs—people who just want to be comfortable and don’t have a burning desire to change the world. I’ve also lost any protective instinct toward people who stay in a shitty area with no opportunities just because they have a sentimental attachment to their podunk hometown. My experiences taught me that these people want nothing to do with my vision for the world and aren’t my volk in any meaningful sense.
They have no destiny except under the caligae.
...Is kind of indicative of why this guy and people like him are not the future of Red Tribe.
He's a Blue. His values are Blue to the core. It doesn't matter if he were Von Neumann reborn; he doesn't want what we want, he isn't interested in our values and so he's never going to be on our side in any meaningful way. If he were supremely competent, then he'd be dangerous; as is, he appears mainly to be an instructive, cautionary example.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11d ago
The anti-trans faction, believing themselves entitled to know, and act on the knowledge of, the genital/gonadal configurations of strangers...
...You frame this as though this was some novel innovation on the part of an "anti-trans faction", but in fact entitlement to know and act on the genital/gonad configuration of strangers has been a bog-standard feature of society for centuries, and arguably back to the beginning of recorded history.
thus allowing them to make the assertion that other people's genitalia are any of their business without being seen to make said assertion
They didn't have to assert shit. This was all common knowledge for generations at least. Other people's genitalia, in the framing you present here, are and have been a matter of public interest for as long as we've had sex-segregated public spaces, which is a very, very long time.
This seems to me to be a remarkably dishonest description of what has actually been done, and by who.
The traditional substitutes are money and power.
...I think you left off a third element, which is "immunity to consequences." There's lots of ways to get money and power. There are few ways to get or wield money and power that are protected from consequences deriving from the getting and the wielding, and almost all those ways involve "be an elite" among them. Include this element, and the hostility toward elites you correctly identify with gains a heaping helping of necessary context. Our elites have almost completely insulated themselves from negative consequences arising from their wielding of money and power, and the resentment this lack of accountability breeds is probably not something the present system can or should survive.
Wild material prosperity is a good start.
Do you believe elites have delivered wild material prosperity? Does the current generation understand that it is living amid wild material prosperity? If not, why not? Was Mangione mistaken? Are his fans in the public and the press and the justice system aware of that fact?
Like, the basic problem with the anti-populist defense of elites is that elites by definition are the people running things, and we can look at the world around us to assess how they're actually performing. So we repeatedly get, as you offer here, vague appeals to how wonderful things are in this best of all possible worlds, which die a death the moment you compare them to the PANIC PANIC PANIC elites themselves observably resort to in order to goad the populace down their preferred policy chute, into their preferred policy captive-bolt-gun.
The public at large believed that "police shooting unarmed black men" was a crisis, because Elites spent a decade intentionally generating the illusion of such a crisis. But the largest spike ever recorded in violent crime was actually real, and was very clearly a direct consequence of the public reaction to that elite-generated illusion.
And so for Education, and the Afghan war, and the GWOT generally, and the criminal justice system generally, and for offshoring manufacturing annd arguably for the economy generally, for the whole of the Trans Rights issue, for the LGBT movement in at least a large part, the COVID response, immigration and on and on and on.
Really, the question is absurd unless you draw a very unintuitive box around “elite human capital.” Purging your best and brightest is not conducive to scientific or cultural wealth.
I can't find the X.com link at the moment to the academic lady with a prestigious fellowship, arguing in an interview that reporting child abuse is racist. So instead, I'll note that I disagree that our present elites are in fact "our best", and that intelligence is very clearly orthogonal to goodness.
We straight-up cannot afford these people. They have to go, and if they do not go peacefully they will absolutely go violently, and much that we value will go with them, and that will still be preferable to the ruin of letting them continue to run things.
Presumably your hedging of 'by its own rules' means something like 'if a member of the outgroup does something bad, we can blame the outgroup for it', and I am sure you have some story of some Trump supporter having a psychotic episode and shooting up a shopping mall getting spun as MAGA violence.
Right-Wing Violence Is Not A Fringe Issue
The American Right and the Thrill of Political Violence
Analysis: What Data Shows About Political Extremist Violence
Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence − what the data shows
The Right's Violence Problem
As Right-Wing Rhetoric Escalates, So Do Threats And Violence
Right-Wing and ‘Radical Islamic’ Terror in the U.S. Are Equally Serious Threats: ADL Report
...Just a couple links grabbed off a stack that rivals Everest.
Blue Tribe wants there to be a legible, coherent category of "Red Tribe violence"; for people to have common knowledge that Red Tribe violence is a live social issue to which current events connect, that there's a history and a dataset, a conversation in progress, potential solutions ready to go.
Blue Tribe wishes to prevent "Blue Tribe violence" from being such a legible, coherent category, or indeed for any of the above features to coalesce around it.
Blue Tribe very clearly uses the dance back and forth between "this is a social problem that demands systemic solutions" and "eh, crazy random happenstance, what can you do" as one of its core political tactics. People recognize this pattern, and they see it everywhere, and charity is burned thereby. This particular front in the Culture War has been operating for much more than a decade. You should be aware of it, and you should, I personally think, account for it in your arguments. Absent such an accounting, your condemnations are meaningless, because it is obvious that they are selectively partisan.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
13d ago
This is the most American of things. Men are free, and when free, this is what significant amounts of them do.
This is certainly a view one can hold. By all means, maintain the same perspective when it is you getting got.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14d ago
At some point, I want to write a review of that movie, having never actually seen it beyond clips. It seems extremely obvious to me that most of its target audience badly misunderstood it, which is a shame because I think it's an amazing example of explicitly Culture War film. As with Ex Machina, though, it seems like the target audience is willfully determined to miss the point.
Not everything is culture war material.
Do you believe that the personal is not political?
NFL ownership leans Republican.
What sort of Republican? Trump has been fighting a bitter civil war within the Republican party since the 2016 primaries, and that numerous establishment Republicans have explicitly sided with Blue Tribe in opposition to him. "But these people are Republicans" is a line that's been abused for a full decade now. Sure, this person who is voting Democrat and wants me to vote democrat and agrees with the Democrats on all major issues and has nothing for scorn for me is a "republican" because he used to be high-up in the party that took my money and gave me nothing for decades. Obviously he wants to resume that occupation, and obviously democrats would prefer that my choices are to vote for them or for someone who bends the knee every time but who they still get to call names. I have zero incentive to play along with this farce.
"The only thing stronger than hate is love" is a slogan popular among people who take pleasure from publicly contemplating the violent death of my children. I do not believe anyone is actually confused about what is going on here. Some people, even here, simply find it convenient in the moment to pretend.
my point is that believing a people are "chosen" isn't an argument for giving them whatever they want. What if they behaved badly to the God who chose them, and thus are being punished by him?
More options
Context Copy link