domain:anarchonomicon.com
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
34m ago
Something's gotta give between
-
Abstinence until marriage
-
Marriage driven by choice and random chance relatively (25+) late in life.
-
No fault divorce.
-
A healthy sex drive in an individual.
I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, I think I know what you'd choose. But at core those four can't, in general, live together. At least one has to go.
phailyoor
35m ago
If you're just trying to keep your boot in their face, then it doesn't matter. Blow up their economic and military centers and keep them from building up. Sadaam was begging for a deal in 2003 but Bush was too stupid to make one.
It certainly becomes difficult if you seriously want a regime change or occupation.
I understand the covenant as God having had a relationship with the righteous Hebrew nation. He did not have a covenant with those outside the righteous nation. Not with gentiles, obviously. But also not with Hebrews (= pre 70 AD descendants of Abraham) who abandoned the Law and adopt gentile worship and customs. If having the tiniest shred of Abraham's DNA made you one of the Chosen, there should be more consternation in the Bible about the Babylonian captivity or the children of kidnapped Hebrew women, but those people are just treated as gentiles AFAIK.
I think God probably gave the Hebrews living after 33AD a grace period, but the He really underlined His point in 70AD, after which AIUI it was no longer possible to continue the traditional Hebrew religion as commanded by God. So, after a brief period, the Hebrew diaspora (=Jews) created a new tradition partially rooted in the pre-70AD religion. I don't think God recognizes this new tradition as legitimate, and the NT says that the Christian church is the new Israel. There's the question of the 144,000 in Revelation, but I don't really know what to make of that, maybe some special mercy for descendants of Abraham of good conscience. Or some people say it means Christians. I don't know.
Edit: IIRC God promised the Hebrews: land, descendants, a relationship (one god/one people), and a messiah through the line of David. The land is now the whole Earth (evangelization), the Hebrews have myriad spiritual descendants, the God/people relationship remains intact, and the Messiah is Christ.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
38m ago
True Marxism has never been tried, Comrade!
More or less by definition any given "ideal" is going to be difficult, and rarely is the True Ideal tried particularly hard, unless one's ideal is sincerely some laissez-faire muddling-along sort of thing.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
38m ago
only a limited number of kids within marriage, preferably but not always after education and establishing a career. He has no objection to "get married at twenty, have kids" as long as it comes with "have a decent job, maybe even both of you, and only have two kids spaced appropriately apart and not immediately after you get married".
This person is just making crap up and does not speak for me.
phailyoor
39m ago
There may be a correlation, but it's not absolute. Mexico doesn't have a single tank or air defense system in its entire armed forces. Even if Mexico wanted to build a domestic military industry, they may not have the state capacity to do it.
Meanwhile Ukraine is far smaller in population but capable of fighting a modern total war on land sea and air.
Hadad
40m ago
History shows us that when Christianity was in fact being tried, we did in fact have better outcomes on a whole host of relevant metrics to the people yearning for Christianity. It was Christianity's decline, not ascent, that was accompanied by the degradation of society.
Hadad
42m ago
At what point do you think the US military asks Ted Cruz for population estimates in order to plan the next bomber run?
Rov_Scam
42m ago
You obviously have no personal experience with the average white male county judge.
Hadad
43m ago
You yourself got +15 upvotes saying things that I thought were quite uncool, and very right coded. I was with you for the first half, but "The more pain and terror inflicted in the process" and "I want the fascistcore club music as a squad of red-visored faceless commandos mow down the rioters waving Mexican flags." are things I think should get you disqualified from being taken seriously on the topic. I don't mean that as a personal attack (I'm sure you're a kind person to your friends and loved ones, etc) but holy shit dude, what the fuck? The fact that anyone (let alone a voting majority) agreed with you is a pretty clear demonstration of ideological lean here. If you posted this on reddit (obviously quite left leaning) you'd be at -100 and probably banned to boot.
No offense taken, much like how you'll not be offended by the obvious retort coming up: your disapproval genuinely means nothing to me. You're right that Reddit would not allow this, as Reddit only supports violent fantasizing when it's directed toward the right. Replace "criminals and illegals" with "law-abiding Republican voters", and they'll foam at the mouth in support.
And yes, I got fifteen upvotes. I expressed myself plainly, took a hard stance, and stood by it. You can do similar! You'll find great success if you use the right tone and style. These sorts of posts, where you passively complain and snip at people, will almost always encourage a pile-on. Nobody likes snivelers.
Lastly, I'd strongly encourage you to not mistake "lack of progressives" with "abundance of right-wing". Almost everyone here hates progressives and progressivism. That's why they're disaffected liberals.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
44m ago
Posting a comment that is nothing but some poem ChatGPT came up with is not conversation.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
45m ago
if you really listen to everything they say and the actions they take and try and discern their motivations, then yeah, it turns out they really just do believe it
I think bribery is a much more accurate and succinct explanation, actually. I don't actually believe that Cruz would hold this opinion without substantial donations riding on it.
There are certainly parts of the American right for which this is a legit religious conviction, I don't think they're of much consequence today anymore versus MIC interests.
TitaniumButterfly
46m ago
What does 'person' mean here?
hydroacetylene
47m ago
Knowing the specific population of Iran is far, far less relevant than knowing it’s a Shia theocracy implacably opposed to Israël and pushing Shiite interests in the Middle East. Getting Iran’s population right is kinda trivia.
And Ted Cruz believing the mandate to support Israël is much more popular than you give him credit for. The specific formulation may not be, but ‘God will punish the enemies of Israel’ is both widely believed among the base and a reasonable interpretation of recent events.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
48m ago
Yeah maybe, at this point we're both vibing given the scope of our discussion (the direction of human civilization).
Human history has been a fairly steady march of increasing liberalism, I think because humans like doing what they want and hate being told what to do. It's open for debate if that's actually been a good thing for us (some ways yes, some ways absolutely not) as a whole. But I have a hard time imagining people wanting to give up freedom and flexibility once they have it.
I could be wrong though, if I was accurately able to predict the direction of entire societies I would be very very rich, and too busy raising children on my private tropical island to post here.
I also added "and unpopular" to my sentence above that you quoted, as it wasn't precise enough before.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
52m ago
I actually agree, Marxism has been tried (and been found wanting). But I also firmly think that Christian ideals have been tried, and that Chesterson is wrong (albeit with great prose). There are 2.6 billion followers of Christianity. The world has been dominated by Christian nations for like ~400 straight years, waning over the last 60.
If someone wants to argue "okay but that wasn't true Christian ideals" than I think they should accept the same position on Marxism.
Sure, we didn't test a society with perfect Christian ideals, but that's what happens when ideals have to map on to real life. The value of an ideal isn't based on the hypothesized textbook perfect form, it's based on the real outcomes once you expose it to human society.
AugustDeRosa
52m ago
Sure, but I think it's fair to say that someone who is interested in regime change would be better off knowing some basic facts. It's of course not necessary - you can hold whatever opinion you want with or without facts - but an individual who has done some research is likely to be more adept at the decision making involved. It has utility.
Hadad
52m ago
I don't think there being a billion Chinamen is the reason we don't nuke China. Them already having nukes is the big obstacle there.
Hadad
53m ago
Things like industrial capacity, military budget, GDP, are all largely contingent on population.
This all may be true, to an extent (it's obviously not as simple as adding people means more state capacity).
But again: so? I'm confident America is superior regardless.
Hadad
55m ago
So you'd need to either totally occupy or install a puppet regime backed by your military, (probably both in that order), and the population matters there.
Why does regular bombing campaigns leaving the country unable to create the necessary infrastructure not a viable path forward? I see no particular reason we can't just annihilate them.
AugustDeRosa
55m ago
The Bible makes it pretty clear that there is something special about the relationship between the Jews and God, that this is passed down in a tribal fashion, and that this was not, at least in its entirety, entirely erased by the crucifixion and resurrection (e.g. Romans 11). I would personally read it as "the tribe of Israel is very special, but now everyone is able to become part of that tribe in a new, special way that didn't exist before, and this is partially because of how the tribe of Israel really dropped the ball".
Hadad
55m ago
Change tends to be inevitable when you blow up the current regime! But that's substantially different from us, personally, trying to groom a new generation of good boys in the Middle East.
Any proposed policy or solution that requires massive social change to work isn't a very useful proposal, but it's a nice dream I guess
That's a weird thing to say standing in the consequences of massive social change.
We did it before and we can do it again. There is nothing mandatory about the sexual revolution, lots of human civilizations don't work like this right now let alone in history. And mores can grow more rigid in response to problems created by liberalization, has happened many times before.
These politicians hardly act as devout christians who believe every word of the bible.
They act as most devout Christians act, in my experience: when it's something that doesn't impact them directly on a personal level (e.g. nuking Iran), they're all for it, when it's something that inconveniences them personally (e.g. not having sex with underage male prostitutes), they had a moment of weakness and will return to the Lord.
That doesn't mean they don't believe it, it just makes them human.
Christian understanding does not end at the Bible. Indeed the Bible says not to use itself that way (2 Thessalonians 2:15). This would seem to be quite a problem for Protestantism but that's beside the point.
The point here is that for a couple thousand years Christians have understood God's relationship with Israel to have been transferred, in a sense, to the Church. Early Christians understood themselves to be part of the fulfilment of the Jewish religion; that Judaism has become Christianity and gentiles have a place in it. They didn't understand 'Judaism' to be a separate thing from Christianity.
However, especially with the destruction of the second temple, the Jews who rejected Christ underwent a radical shift in their beliefs and practices, leading to what we today call "Rabbinical Judaism" -- not the same religion that (partly) transformed into Christianity and, indeed, a younger religion than Christianity, which fairly heavily and consciously defined itself against Christianity.
Within this rubric, what we today call 'Judaism' is rather a Christian heresy and no, there's no expectation that its adherents have any special role that Christians need to worry about. The Church is the 'True Israel'.
For non-Protestant Christians, having so many Protestants in political power is bemusing, frustrating, and sometimes terrifying. This case is all three.
More options
Context Copy link