What happens when Christians fail to understand their role in government? Their government becomes a threat to the spread of the Gospel. Does that sound a bit alarmist? Well, look at what is going on in Washington D.C. and Richmond, VA. At this point, the problem should be self-evident. Consider the moral decay.
- We abort babies by the millions, and euthanasia is growing ever more popular.
- We admire people who practice what we once had the good sense to regard as sexually perverse and self-destructive.
- Our mass media, the operators of our social media, and our elected leaders actively propagandize (lie) to us. Therefore, we find it increasingly difficult to discern and to share the truth with each other.
- Our country is more bitterly divided than at any time since the American Civil War. The side in power has actually reached the point where it is actively trying to “cancel,”…
View original post 1,255 more words
Citizen Tom 
Thanks for following my site; you are very kind.
Just some food for thought.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Angel,
I’m not sure who you are quoting here, but that person is confused. “Political correctness” is a propaganda tool utilized to promote or more often as it is here, simply to create a derogative against a given ideological way of thinking. It is not the ideology itself.
Through mere shaming or by the more coercive force of law, Nazi fascists, Stalinist Communists and our Revolutionary Founders all in their own ways punished a lack of political correctness in speech and actions. They just didn’t call it that. In fact, ironically, by castigating anyone who merely disagrees with you as a communist, you are yourself enforcing your own form of political correctness.
Whoever you are quoting obviously hasn’t really studied Communism (or for that matter, any number of other ideologies) if that person simply equates a tool with a plan. It’s the difference between confusing a blue print with a hammer.
@tsalmon
The quote is from this guy.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anthony_Daniels_(psychiatrist)
Makes sense to me.
Tom,
What makes sense to you? That only communist propagandists practice political correctness? That the current censure of various Republicans for their lack of Trumpian fealty isn’t its own form of enforcement of political correctness?
@tsalmon
Political correctness is a technique. The quote makes sense. Communists, Nazis, and Liberal Democrats use political correctness. They just use different names for it.
Tyranny of one of the stops on that road paved with good intentions. Because too many people now confuse good intentions with wisdom, we are cursed to live in interesting times.
I hope people see the senselessness and stop trying to force their values upon their neighbors using love and tolerance as hypocritical excuses. Unfortunately, I don’t see much sign of wisdom and sanity returning. Your exhibition of political correctness, for example, seems all too commonplace.
Am I going to accept your truth and repeat your truth just because you call me names? Am I that fearful of Liberal Democrats? Well, not yet, anyway. If my family is threatened, I don’t know what I will do.
I am told that everyone has a breaking point, but mine isn’t being harassed by a foolish brother with good intentions. Really don’t want to find out what my breaking point is, but things could reach that point, I suppose.
Theodore Dalrymple.
Daniels is a contributing editor to City Journal, published by the Manhattan Institute, where he is the Dietrich Weismann Fellow.[3] In addition to City Journal, his work has appeared in The British Medical Journal, The Times, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, The Salisbury Review, National Review, New English Review, The Wall Street Journal,[4] and Axess magasin. He is the author of a number of books, including Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass; Our Culture, What’s Left of It; and Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality.
In his writing, Daniels frequently argues that the socially liberal and progressive views prevalent within Western intellectual circles minimise the responsibility of individuals for their own actions and undermine traditional mores, contributing to the formation within prosperous countries of an underclass afflicted by endemic violence, criminality, sexually transmitted diseases, welfare dependency, and drug abuse. Much of Dalrymple’s writing is based on his experience of working with criminals and the mentally ill.
In 2011, Dalrymple received the 2011 Freedom Prize from the Flemish think tank Libera![5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple
Tom,
Most of the most influential Founders were white supremacist slave holders. This is not a controversial statement. It is not disputed. It is a matter of historical fact.
This does not mean that America was not founded upon lofty notions about universal rights, but the historical fact that America was also founded and its Revolution was also financed upon White Supremacy must necessarily color everything we say about the lies we tell ourselves when we do not recognize both the monumentally progressive Enlightenment direction of institutional individual rights protection that our nation took in the 18th Century and how much we were actually fundamentally failing then and every minute of our history since then. Seeing one without the other, fundamental success without the fundamental failure (or vice versa), has always deluded us from our trues selves as a country and as individuals living within that cultural history. It’s like the person who sees only the image of God in himself (or others) without his inherently sinful nature, or who sees only the inherently sinful nature without a recognition of the universal and inseparable human/God intertwining in himself and his neighbors.
This uncritical worship, the idolatry, of our amazingly innovative elite WASP male Founders without reference to the essential lie, the original sin, at the founding and throughout most of our history leads us to the inherent internal cultural personality conflict that has plagued our development and will continue to do so until we face within ourselves and our culture that good and that bad, the dark and the light, the image of God and the infection of corporate Adam by the Devil. Just as the best of American idealism is essentially a pluralism bonded together within a healthy and skeptical self awareness of our basic nature of dark and light, the worst and most prevailing American pathology is the nativism that causes us glorify any certain cultural identity (in your case WASP machismo) at the expense of the truth about our historical and ongoing failings, as well as equally important (and often more important) sacrifices toward lasting American justice made by women, by slaves and former slaves, by impoverished labor struggles, and by peoples of all colors and backgrounds joined together in union toward a common idealistic struggle that can only be made “more perfect”, but which will never be perfect.
Ultimately, nativism in any form, whether based on a political hegemony of a certain color, a peculiar religion, a linguistic purity, a claim of cultural superiority or a combination of all the above inexorably leads to fascism. I’m sorry, you may not like that term, but let’s just call it what it is, and let’s simply look in the mirror and admit what is ultimately being perpetrated with your arguments here Tom. If you are going to basically advocate fascism, then be honest enough to own it.
But please, let’s not claim that there is anything Christlike about such nativist fascism. And let’s not claim that there is anything in our most basic and best American pluralistic values about such nativist fascism. It’s just the another chapter in a sad and endless history of the atavistic evil of the Cain in all of us. Let’s call this thing what it basically is and admit what was the source of inspiration behind the white insurrectionist mob that stormed the Capital. It’s fascism, plain and simple. You may not be violent and you may not be advocating violence, but this sort of fascism that you are preaching here is exactly what inspires it.
The “mob” was a false flag.
Angel,
Sure, and the moon landings were faked.
I watched the moon landings in real time. I don’t have an opinion on them.
I watched the rally and subsequent events on live-streams and personally captured much video of events as they unfolded.
So yes, false flag.
Ok Angel, the people who stormed the Capital had just gotten fired up by Trump and his minions at a Trump rally that Trump planned. Trump told them repeatedly that he was coming with them. As they stormed the Capital, most of them wore MAGA hats and many carried Trump flags (to beat police officers with). Many belonged to White Supremacist, White Nationalist, Qanon conspiracy kook chat rooms and a myriad of other ultra right wing militia and anarchist domestic terrorists affiliations, but the common denominator was that they support Trump and that they felt that they had the support of our POTUS to overthrow the election, cancel the counting of state certified electors and simply hand the democratic republic to a righteous Trump dictatorship.
As these people are being arrested the common denominator isn’t evidencing some ridiculous “false flag” conspiracy nonsense – it’s just all MAGA, MAGA, MAGA.
Tom, don’t you see that this is what the Big Lie breeds when you foment it – it metastasizes into thousand other kooky lies and hate filled conspiracy theories? And you don’t think that you own this nonsense? You can’t keep people from living in their own bazaar He’ll, but you don’t have to paint the walls blood red there for them.
@tsalmon
The big lie is a lie that gets repeated and repeated, which is what you are doing.
Democrats have harassed Trump and his supporters for years, trying to shame us with lies. There is never any evidence, just lie after lie and endless repetition.
The attack on the Capitol was a gift to the liars. Even though Trump had nothing to do with it, the liars can point to the attack and blame Trump for something that actually happened. Something bad that actually happened. That is grand progress for the liars.
You write these sick and lengthy comments. Do you ever add anything new. Not often. Just the latest lie. Do you ever discuss any issues, like what the guy you voted for is doing? No. Trump is not president anymore, but you know what Biden is. So, just as your so-called mainstream is doing, you repeat lies about Trump. And you think I am cornered?
I don’t have to live with the fact I voted for the people you vote for. I don’t have to take that ugly fact to the grave with me. If you don’t repent, you will.
I’m not hate filled, why would you even say such a heinous thing?
I do know what I saw and recorded. Trump was still speaking, over a mile away, when the Capitol was breached. In fact, his speech didn’t end until almost 7 minutes after the breech occurred.
My videos, captured from live streamers at the time of the incident plainly show Capitol police moving barriers and waving people in.
President Trump of course had no way of knowing this, as he was still speaking, over a mile away.
My videos also show patriots trying to stop the Black Bloc terrorists from entering the Capitol.
I also have video of patriots begging police to stop the rioters.
I also captured video of Black Bloc rioters changing into MAGA themed clothing.
There was a horrible amount of vote fraud. I’d be ashamed to be the person advocating for that to be condoned.
I mean, it’s your freedom that was stolen also.
@Angel
Do you have online links to those videos?
@citizen Tom. I have the videos on my phone.
If you think they will add something, put them online. No use in talking about them otherwise. Alternatively, find other videos that show the same thing.
Consider a portion of the comment I left here => https://cookiecrumbstoliveby.wordpress.com/2021/01/29/before-heading-back-down-to-where-life-is-full-of-blissful-madness-the-calm-before-the-storm/comment-page-1/#comment-32096
Hard to convince people of something they don’t want to believe, but evidence helps.
Angel,
Sure, I have videos of Martians eating corn puffs through their butts.
@tsalmon
Not Martians. Just CNN and MSNBC news personnel.
@Tsalmon
Caused by global warming, of course. All Trump’s fault.
Well, at least you can say you support a president that said black children who knew a mean dude named Corn Pop loved to sit on his lap and rub his adult leg hairs.
@Angel
To some extent, at least. Mostly, I think it was just people being stupid.
@tsalmon
Debate is not name calling. That is not a controversial statement, but it is often disputed in practice. Instead of debating, lots of people defend the indefensible by engaging in unremitting name calling. With angry threats these people seek to harass their opponents into silence. Hello President Biden, Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and AOC! What immensely tolerant and gracious souls! Don’t they wear their boots on the necks of their enemies with admirable style? At least that is what it looks like in our contemptible Liberal Democrat news media.
Was America founded upon lofty notions? If it was, or it wasn’t, why don’t you debate those lofty notions? Why is it necessary for you to throw around expressions like “white supremacist,” “nativist fascism,” “uncritical worship,” “idolatry,” “WASP machismo,” and so forth? With the name calling, are you making a foolish assumption based upon your own bigotry? You are right because you are better. Better than the Founders you have the unmitigated gall to call “white supremacists”? The Founders could not solve an age-old problem in their lifetimes, but they did establish an important principle for latter generations. You have rejected that principle, and that makes you better?
You do realize that Joe Biden and many of his backers see nothing wrong with slavery in China? They also see nothing wrong with pollution in China. Great way to make cheap products to sell in America, don’t you know?
In fact, you never actually discussed the topic of this post. You have not challenged whether what I wrote is true or not. Instead, you have just called me names and people whose ideas I respect names. And why? Because we dare to disagree with you? Even that is not clear from all the mud you scooped up and threw. Therefore, unless I choose to make myself the subject (which would be dumb), I cannot debate you.
The irony is that you think you have an open mind, and you fashion as immensely tolerant and wonderful, but look at you. After all the race riots during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration that were encouraged by Democrats, you actually have the gall to be ELATED by the opportunity to attack Conservatives because some hotheads who associated themselves with Trump rioted at the Capitol Building. And how do we know you are ELATED? You use every opportunity to bring it up.
There is nothing virtuous in what you want. So, you cannot justify what you want. All you can do is belittle your opponents to justify yourself, and even if that requires the phony logic of guilt by association.
As I have said before, I try not to justify myself. Either what I believe stands on its own merit, or it does not. And so far you have not even touched that lofty idea expressed in The Declaration of Independence. You have just attacked me and other people who dare to believe in that lofty idea.
Think about what you wrote again. Your comment was certainly long enough, but with all those words you never said how I am actually advocating fascism. You just made the stupid accusation of white supremacy and fascism over and over again. Sad!
Tom,
“White Supremacy” is a definable thing. Whether derogatory by modern standards or not, it simply is what it is so there is no truth in pretending something isn’t what it simply is.
By even the most benign definition of the term “White Supremacist” adhered to by our avid White Supremacists to this day, the Founders were White Supremacists. Depending upon the individual, even many, if not most, of the Founders who were not slave holders, believed in the inferiority of blacks and the superiority of whites. That makes them also “White Supremacists” by definition.
Note that I have not called you a White Supremacist because you do not meet the pure definition of that term. However, that does not mean that what you advocate, your ideology, doesn’t hold commonalities with others on the spectrum from White Supremacy to a White Nationalism to Trumpublicans who simply advocate the anti-democratic political hegemony of a WASP masculine culture.
“Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.”
Name calling? It’s not really an ad hominem argument if the label is truthful to the supposedly “lofty” notions that the person or group advocates through their words and actions. You love labeling your political opponents regardless of the derogatory connotations of the label. You also love mislabeling people and groups as “communists” and “socialists” even though the facts do not match the actual definition of the label, so pleeeeaaase, can we just dispense with the self righteous grievance based whining about someone else supposedly doing to you what you constantly do to everyone who disagrees with you. It’s pathetic in its disingenuous hypocrisy. Unlike you, I’m happy to avoiding sticking you with a label that does not fit, so let’s break it down:
1. Aren’t you “far right” in your political and ideological sentiments? Yes. I would say unabashedly so.
2. Aren’t your political and ideological sentiments “ultranationalist”? Taken to it’s obvious conclusion, your constantly railing against “multiculturalism” (a nonexistent system) advocates an anti-pluralistic monoculture characterized by an idealized and exclusive dominant WASP masculinity which does not even recognize the cultural contributions of a myriad of other people’s, including those who were here when we got here, those who were brought here forcibly and those of various races, religions and ethnicities who came here and make up the American plurality. Put simply therefore, you are advocating an extreme nativism that is unavoidably a form of “America First” ethnocentric and xenophobic “ultranationalism. Whether you choose to call it that or not, that is simply what it is.
3. That leaves whether your words and actions advocate a politically coercive authoritarianism. Well, you are certainly “antidemocratic” in that you constantly advocate for a form of minority rule. If a minority is forcing its hegemony upon a majority, then that is certainly “authoritarian”. When you advocated that the will of the individual states electors simply be thrown out by the federal government, then that authoritarianism also sought to supplant federalist republican checks and balances with raw federal political dominance. The Trump incited mob that you helped motivate was just the next step in trying to install Trump through mob force. This sounds pretty much like the fascism that took Europe by “storm” whether you want to accept the truth of the comparison or not.
You said that I did not respond to your post, but I am arguing here that a WASP masculine fascism is at the heart of your ideology, and therefore an acknowledgment of that truth (or a defense that the label doesn’t somehow essentially fit) just naturally will begin any conversation about how your particular WASP masculine religious ideology should or should not dominate national politics. If we are going to be honest with each other, I don’t see how the argument can’t start right there.
I’m curious, Tsalmon, How would you define nationalism vs. patriotism. St. Thomas Aquinas, points to the virtue of patriotism toward one’s country granted he’d describe it a bit different. St. Thomas also advocates for helping sojourners fleeing hardships, but advocates that it is their duty to integrate.
Phillip,
Good question. There is not an easy answer to it.
At a gut level as a military officer, my loyalty, my patriotism was to the sailors who I served as their leader and to the leaders who I served under. Expanding that gut level love outward, that patriotism would extend to include protection of my town, my state and my country. However, there is simply no denying that this is essentially an expanding form of tribal loyalty/patriotism.
At a moral political level, my actual highest loyalty and patriotism was and is manifested in my oath to support and defend the institutional process embodied in the Constitution. Essentially, the entire life’s blood of military service is about that kind of patriotism.
As a matter of ethics, I won’t go in to all the ways that that two types of patriotism could possibly be ambiguous or how they might come into conflict and compromised with one another. Most people don’t know as much about the Constitution as the should know or, unfortunately, as they think that they know.
Nationalistic authoritarian patriotism at the expense of the Constitution is fascism. Constitutional loyalty, even at the expense of tribal nationalism, is what it means to be patriotic to a democratic republic. The difference between these two types of patriotism is the difference between a constitutional type form of government and living in a banana republic. We came close to being the latter on Jan 6, except I think that our military leadership and police forces fortunately knew that difference better than some the citizens that they protect and serve.
@tsalmon
As I said before, you are ELATED by the assault on the Capitol. Where was your outrage when supposedly nonexistent Antifa radicals blinded police officers with lasers?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-protester-high-powered-laser-eye-police
Violence is okay for some, but not for others? The law applies to some, but not to others?
Is it okay to be partial to some? That is, do you favor “equity” over equality? To resolve tribal conflicts, is it okay for some tribes to rob other tribes?
Tom,
This is a ridiculous false equivalency. Under your fallacious logic, a prerequisite for you to condemn even the violent robbery of your own home is that you must list and then condemn each lesser or greater act of human violence going back to Cain and Abel. It’s a dumb whataboutism and you know it.
The Trump Insurrection stands on its own as a singular unsuccessful attempt to stop the peaceful constitutional transfer of Presidential power and it is a unique embarrassment to our democratic republic in all of of US history. I also don’t believe that this is over yet, especially as people like you keep alive the lies and conspiracy theories that lead us to it. The closest comparison to this new attempt at a White Nationalist fascist coup is the American Civil War.
Why do you always answer with a propagandist party line even when you must know that it is neither a moral nor a logical argument? Can you actually explain anything without resorting to such obvious demagoguery? Isn’t this telling you anything about the fallacious nature of your position and of the precarious moral quicksand upon which your current conman cult worshiping Republican Party is standing now.
The GOP no longer even exists any more. This culturally xenophobic, ethnocentric, supposedly Christian White Nationalist Party of radicals and conspiracy theory kooks bares no resemblance to any historical Republican institutional conservatism. It’s just a populist mob of violent insurrectionists now, not a loyal opposition. It needs to be dragged out in the light of moral truth and shown for what it is for what it is rather than our just appeasing the fabulous lies that this evil beast feeds itself and grows on.
Politics is not the art of war. War is the art of war. Politics, by its very nature, when practiced successfully in a democratic republic is the art of compromise. Whether it was originally planned that way or not, our system of government depends upon the checks and balances and compromises between two competing, but essentially fraternal, political parties. Complete ideologically driven dominance by by either political party without the basic pragmatism of compromise and balance will invariably lead us to an atavistic period of corruption and totalitarianism by the party, either party that only seeks and gains total systemic hegemony, no matter how seemingly altruistic the reasons the dominant victor states as the reasons for its reason its rise to one party rule. For the sake of our children and grand children, we each have a responsibility to work to avoid that disaster.
I don’t want to see Democratic one party rule any more than I want this fascist beast that the GOP has mutated into to rule us. But if I’m forced to choose between the two iterationd as they appear now, well, there is no real choice.
@tsalmon
Then you proceed to get more and more shrill, angry, and extreme.
There is no substance in anything you said. The ONLY thing you can point to is the attack on the Capitol, and your own, precious, so-called mainstream news media is as much responsible for the attack on the Capitol as anyone else. Those people, with all their name-calling and fear porn, name-calling and fear porn you insist upon repeating, have incited more violence than anyone else.
@tsalmon
I label my opponents with the label they take upon themselves, or I justify the label. Do I like labeling people? Not especially, but sometimes I don’t see a better alternative. We use words because they are how we convey ideas, and we are what we believe.
Have I called you a Socialist? Yes. Have you rejected the label? Yes. Have you provided a logical refutation of my argument for calling you a Socialist? No. When I ask you to explain what mechanism you would use to limit the reach and power of government, you never explained. When you are voting for people who constantly increase government power and reject any constitutional limits on their power, calling you a Socialist is not a slur.
Anyway, if you want to take issue with my use of a label, feel free to do so.
Were the Founders white supremacists? No. That label does not fit them. They were not Nazis or even close. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison did not go around advocating white supremacy or slavery. If you did a modicum of research you would find the Founders did not like slavery, and that is why they wrote the Constitution with the way they did. They were hoping slavery would fade away. Any cursory reading of the document reveals that simple truth.
George Washington freed his slaves. => https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/washingtons-1799-will/
Should Washington have freed his slaves earlier? Probably. Freeing slaves, however, is not a simple matter. Even good men don’t want to be poor men. Moreover, men and women raised as slaves often don’t know how to take care of themselves. During reconstruction, for example, lots of blacks died. One reason was the economy of the South had been destroyed. Another is that black slaves had not been raised to live an independent life. A third is that in a country predominantly populated by whites, whites who quite honestly did not have a high opinion of blacks, blacks did have more problems making a living.
Consider the Book of Exodus. The generations of Hebrews that had grown upon as slaves in Egypt constantly balked. The Egyptians abused the Hebrews because the were different, and they thought that difference made them their inferiors. And the Hebrews were half convinced they were better off as slaves and protected by the Egyptians. Hence, Moses waited 40 years in the wilderness.
How did America become divided between North and South? In the North, the states outlawed slavery, and most Northerners sold theirs slave to Southerners. If I recall correctly, there is actually a explanation of this in Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville.
What drove the southward movement? The nobility of Northerners? No. Economics. Certain crops like tobacco, rice, and cotton require year-around labor. When there is no work for them, slaves are more expensive than they are worth. The invention of the cotton gin, unfortunately, saved slavery. The cotton gin made cotton king and slavery profitable enough to survive and lead to a war.
Anyway, I am not going to defend personally myself, particularly when you are making statements that are simply untrue. I never do defend myself. I defend my beliefs, not myself. I have better things to do than to be distracted by obvious ad hominem. If you were not my brother, I would simply ignore you. What I understand and you don’t is that your name calling is not a substitute for debate. Your name calling shames you, not me.
“Have I called you a Socialist? Yes. Have you rejected the label? Yes. Have you provided a logical refutation of my argument for calling you a Socialist? No”
Yes. I have actually, on numerous occasions. You just don’t listen to what you don’t want to hear.
Socialism is an actual thing with a basic definition:
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I don’t advocate that particular ideology, nor have I lived my life in that way. I paid for almost all of my own academic education, including my post graduate education. Did you? My law degree comes from a private Baptist Regional University. Other than my military service, most of my adult earnings come from jobs at private businesses, corporations and LLCs. The majority of my savings and retirement income comes from my own financial investments and investments made on my behalf by the airline that I worked for as certain tax deferred substitutes for compensation.
If I’m a socialist, I’m sure not very pure about it. Regulated capitalism has been very good to me, but I was also blessed to be trained as a pilot by the armed forces and to be a member of a union and a bar association, both of which protected my two primary occupations.
I’m not ideologically against certain necessary forms of government ownership and regulation where those work best, nor am I ideologically against certain forms of regulated market capitalism where that works best. I can see benefits and downsides in each depending upon the situation, and I’m all for constant pragmatic experimentation and reform to find the best balance and compromise between sometimes competing and sometimes synergistic complex governmental and market economic systems. Ideological purity does not actually exists in any known successful working modern state. Only radicals and extremists on the far left or the far right actually believe in such fanciful ideologically pure systems.
I’ve shown you mine under your terms. Now you show me yours. Now that I’ve told you how I am not a socialist nor do I adhere to or live that ideology, can you explain to me why you are not a fascist even though you spout something that sounds pretty much like a White Nationalist (or WASP) Fascist ideology? For that matter, can you explain to me why you are not just a self loathing Socialist in a Capitalist disguise?
“Were the Founders white supremacists? No. That label does not fit them. They were not Nazis or even close. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison did not go around advocating white supremacy or slavery. If you did a modicum of research you would find the Founders did not like slavery, and that is why they wrote the Constitution with the way they did. They were hoping slavery would fade away. Any cursory reading of the document reveals that simple truth.“
Nonsense! Washington, Madison and Jefferson were all influential to the founding of our nation. The wealth of all three persons depended upon an economy that specifically promoted and utilized black African human bondage, a type of racialized servitude unique to our nation that lasted 300 years in America and another hundred years under Jim Crow because it economically worked. It “worked” because a racialized caste system permanently consigns its lowest caste members to a servitude caste that is virtually impossible to escape from – one cannot change one’s skin color so as to escape one’s permanent subordinate role. It perpetuated itself because it was economically successful regardless of its immorality.
The fact that some of the Founders thought that it might be immoral makes them more morally guilty in benefiting from a system that depended upon White Supremacy, not less. Washington only freed his slaves after neither he nor his wife had economic use for them. Jefferson never freed his concubine, Sally Hemings, nor did he recognize his mixed race offspring. Madison, perhaps the most influential framer of the Constitution, had no known qualms about black African slavery. (This is actually a superior moral position in that Madison at least seemed to believe in his racial superiority and therefore the morality of the human misery his elite livelihood depended upon. The Constitution enshrined the institution of black African slavery in its original wording.
white su·prem·a·cy
noun
the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people.
By even the most forgiving definition of the term, the Founders were definitely White Supremacist and in some cases hypocrite White Supremacists.
As for your attempts to sugarcoat the unique cruelties of the American institution of black African slavery in the whole human history of slavery, why don’t you read something by the academics and historians whose ancestors were actually enslaved instead of trying to make an American historical atrocity of servitude, torture and executions likely morally worse than the Holocaust, and that only began to end in our lifetimes, into some kind of revisionist fairytale.
“Anyway, I am not going to defend personally myself, particularly when you are making statements that are simply untrue. I never do defend myself. I defend my beliefs, not myself. I have better things to do than to be distracted by obvious ad hominem. If you were not my brother, I would simply ignore you. What I understand and you don’t is that your name calling is not a substitute for debate. Your name calling shames you, not me.“
As I said, it is only an ad hominem attack if the label doesn’t fit, and you have no problem making such untrue attacks upon me and others so this is just hypocrisy upon hypocrisy. Why are you afraid to explain why what you believe and what you openly advocate here is not a form of WASP masculine cultural fascism. Is it because it fits all the criteria but you just don’t like the label?
@tsalmon
You grew up in a largely capitalist society. So that means you cannot be a Socialist? The Founders grew up in a society that enslaved blacks. So, they must be white supremacists?
There is no reason to take any of that gibberish seriously. You just making a silly excuse to parse your definitions of “Socialism” and “white supremacy” to mean whatever you want.
Words are suppose to mean something, not just mean whatever we want them to mean.
You voted for power grabbing Socialists. Joe “Moderate” Biden has spewed out executive orders by the boatload. Of course the news media defends him. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9917577590 Because none of us over 40 executive orders involves a tax increase, Joe is not being dictatorial? So much for the so-called mainstream news media factchecking.
I have asked you over and over again what is in your political philosophy that opposes Socialism. When is too much government enough, and what mechanisms to you support that keep the government under control? All you can do is spout the definition of Socialism and tell me how moderate you are. Bullshit! We all measure the politics of others with respect to ourselves, and if we are silly enough we think of ourselves as moderates. When compared with you I look extreme. Well, duh! What does that say about you?
Why don’t I bother to defend myself from you? You are not trying to understand what I believe. You are trying to deprive me of my right to believe something different from what you believe.
Here is an example.
I did not sugar coat anything. I compared black slavery with the enslavement of the Hebrews. If you cared you would recall what the Egyptians did to control the population of the Hebrews, whose growth they feared. You would remember why it was that Moses came to be raised in household of the Pharaoh.
Of course, I will give you this. Since Liberal Democrats don’t see much wrong with an abortion just before birth, I suppose they would not see much wrong with the murder of a baby just after birth.
Tom,
You feel cornered, don’t you brother? The world is shrinking for you as reality of Jan. 6 sinks in and now even your little dark echo chamber here has a hole in it where a little daylight is pouring in. Denial is beginning to fail you, isn’t it? Now, you are casting about to change the subject to some other rage, some other hatred to focus on, anything else other than facing yourself and what you and your cult leader helped foment.
Words do have meaning brother. When you sow lies with them, you reap a violent insurrection. Dwell on that cause and effect. Those MAGA hat wearing fools who knocked down barriers, broke in doors and beat police officers with their Trump flags believed what you believe because people just like you told them to believe these lies. These were not guilty thieves using the cloak of night attempting to steal our democratic republic from us. They acted with absolute
impunity because they felt the righteousness in their cause that you helped instill as you cheered with them and you encouraged them on.
Most of them are bewildered and lost now because they expected to just hand our government over to their cult hero who promised he was coming with them, who they undoubtedly thought was actually with them, and with our military and police behind him. As they are being arrested one by one, their common defense is that our President told them to do what they did.
Do you think that they, that riotous mob, believed that they were involved in a fascist insurrection at the time they were rampaging through capital smashing the head of one police officer and grievously injuring numerous others, blood lusting for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi? Now they feel bewildered. Are you bewildered by your role in this? When, since Adam and Eve believed that mythical snake gave them permission, has the worst evils of humanity ever been done without a prideful sense of self righteousness in the moment of the crime? Only later, in the shameful light of truth does the naked guilt begin to set it, and we are at first bewildered and confused as that sentience, that self awareness, sets in, the self aware guilt that separates us from the innocent naïveté of mere rampaging beasts. The Resurrected Christ in history has given to us through His sacrifice, His suffering with us, a mirror to see ourselves and each other incarnate in each of us. We can’t hide from ourselves anymore. That tribalistic fascist mob can’t hide from themselves anymore because we can’t hide from His face . . . and neither ultimately can you. Let it sink in brother – down that path our redemption lies.
@tsalmon
I suppose I would if I did not believe the Bible, but I do.
Difficult times are like storms. They pass. Sometimes the havoc a storm leaves in its wake lingers, but that too is eventually resolved. If nothing else, we die.
What do I worry about? As a follower of Jesus I should not worry, but I do. I would like to leave the free country where I was born in at least as good a condition as it was given to me. That is something I cannot make happen, at least not by myself.
Anyway, if you think I bear responsibility for the attack on the Capitol on January 5, 2021, please call the FBI. Put up, or shut up.
You told me about what happened at the Capitol you idiot, and you also know I was more angry about it than you were. So, you are trying to make me responsible? That is about as stupid as it gets.
You don’t understand Donald Trump, and you don’t understand me. You don’t want to.
Good stuff, Tom. There’s been so much nonsensical half-truths about the founding of our country for the last few decades, people stare at you like some alien when you put history in its proper perspective. So, historically ignorant people with an agenda just label our founding forefathers as “white supremacists.” Because, as Kierkegaard said, “”If you label me you can then dismiss me.” Like the word, racist, we’ve totally evacuated the term “white supremacist” for any significant meaning. Of course, this self-abasement appeals to guilty white liberals.
So now we find ourselves rushing headlong in the slow-death process of tearing down the foundations of our nation, with the the help of pseudo-historical document called “The 1619 Project.” It’s becomes so popular it’s taught in schools now, so you know we’ve removed ourselves very far from understanding our history in the proper light. We’ve been taught to hate our national past for so long it has become the truth. To love our country and venerate what our founding fathers accomplished, is now a sin. We’ve been bullied by the radical left to cringe at notion of being a patriot. The Declaration’s ideal of equality of all people has been replaced with identity politics, critical race theory, and the such which, ironically, is racist, bigoted, and prejudice in nature.
Of course, when actual historians (not journalists) take on a project to accurately and honestly tackle these questions with the 1776 Project, without dismissing issues like slavery but properly assessing the dilemma the founders faced, it gets dismissed as patriotic propaganda. Welcome to Orwell’s 1984!
I think people should start thinking for themselves and investigate these things for themselves. Actually read these documents instead of parroting the party line. A good place to start is to read “The 1776 Project.” As you pointed out, Tom, our history is not so simplistic as our founding fathers owned slaves, therefore they are white supremacists.
https://1776project.org/
@Mel Wild
The 1776 Project is something we need to make go viral. Here is another link, https://info.hillsdale.edu/1776-commission. Here is some more information, http://hillsdalecollegian.com/2021/01/the-1776-report-introduction/. Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn led the commission. So he has done his best to keep the 1776 out there.
Here how serious a problem I think allowing our government to educate our children creates. What is the generation gap? Is it just the result of the experience we gain as we grow older? No. Our problem is that our government now teaches our children things their parents don’t believe. Why are allowing strangers to educate our children and teach them thing we ourselves don’t believe are true?
@ Tom.
Exactly. It’s funny how agnostics and atheists accuse Christian parents of indoctrinating our children when our government sponsored schools indoctrinate them in anti-American neo-Marxist ideology every day.
@Mel Wild
The people who complain about Christian parents indoctrinating their children do that because they approve of the indoctrination that takes place in the public schools. Because that indoctrination is anti-American and neo-Marxist, we should not be surprised that they don’t think Christian parents should have any choice in the matter.
Really, what is sad is that we now have to fight tooth and nail for school choice. That is a measure of how many have chosen the wide instead of the narrow gate.
@ Tom.
Having to fight for school choice is the stark evidence of the absurd notion that the left embraces freedom of choice or tolerance. Saying they are “freethinkers” is a joke. We now live in a time when tolerance and unity mean compliance or punishment. Again, Orwell was prophetic. Hail IngSoc!
@ tsalmon.
“The Trump Insurrection stands on its own as a singular unsuccessful attempt to stop the peaceful constitutional transfer of Presidential power and it is a unique embarrassment to our democratic republic in all of of US history.”
The Trump insurrection? I will answer this with your own question:
Why do you always answer with a propagandist party line even when you must know that it is neither a moral nor a logical argument? Can you actually explain anything without resorting to such obvious demagoguery?
@tsalmon
What utter drivel.
You are smearing Tom as a fascist with no evidence.
You have to twist yourself into prezels and you have to rape logic to somehow turn his beliefs into fascism.
Merriam Websters definition of fascism:
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Where the hell has Tom ever exalted nation or race over the individual? Where has he ever advocated for centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition?
Show us please a specific text passage where he is doing so.
And no, I don‘t accept your batexcrement crazy inferences.
Unless you show us concrete evidence, you are a liar.
Unlike you, he believes, as I do for that matter, that we are endowed by God with certain rights such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
From what I read he also believes in free markets and economic liberty.
All these beliefs are the complete opposite of fascism.
That puts you much closer to fascism than Tom.
Fascism is a collectivist ideology which calls for the absolute supremacy of the state.
Benito Mussolini was a socialist before he became a fascist and no one can deny that both fascism and marxism/socialism are collectivist ideologies which stand in direct opposition to American conservatism with its belief in individual human rights.
Here are some quotes from
THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM
BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
Doesn‘t sound like Tom to me.
„Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual„
„The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people“
„THE ABSOLUTE PRIMACY OF THE STATE
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State„
„If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.“
@artaxes
Thank you.
You‘re welcome.
Artaxes,
“Where the hell has Tom ever exalted nation or race over the individual? “
You mean like “America First”? You mean like “Build that (stupid, racist) Wall” specifically to keep the brown Catholic barbarians out. You mean like a “Muslim Ban” to specifically target and keep the brown believers in Islam out. I could go on and on. My good brother’s rants against his boogie man of “multiculturalism” is essentially just an ethnocentric and xenophobic manifesto in favor of a revanchist, inherently isolationist fascist vision of WASP monocultural political domination. Taken to its natural conclusion, it is “authoritarian” and yes, it is inexorably “totalitarian”. It is fascism.
If you really equate “socialism” as a prerequisite to fascism because it was part of the propaganda used by Hitler and Mussolini, then you are just being historically naive. At its essence, Fascism is about a cult like authoritarian and tribalistic “cultural” supremacy, regardless of the many chimaera it pretends to take on, and whether it calls itself a “communist” or an “Islamic” or a “Tutsi or a Hutu” or a “Jewish” or even a “Christian” authoritarian nationalism. It all is or invariably leads to fascism if it is allowed.to succeed because it is anti-pluralistic. A government that cannot abide pluralism, “e pluribus unum” (out of the many one), must become increasingly fascist or else die like a virus in the bright light of truth when the lie is exposed.
Tom is for using the coercive force of governmental power to exclusively promote his version of WASP individual rights, but not the rights he disagrees with or that of other people’s freedoms to practice their own religion or no religion at all, and certainly not the individual rights “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” of all people, everywhere, but only the ones in his peculiar Utopian version of a WASP male dominated tribe. Just because the fascism isn’t overt White Supremacy doesn’t mean that his brand of WASP masculine White Nationalism isn’t just as fascist.
I love my brother. I’ve known him a lot longer than you have. I worry about how he has become radicalized. However, after, at our President’s behest, in his blatant attempt to overthrow an election certified by the individual states, an insurrectionist mob of kooks, White Supremacists and White Nationalists violently stormed over an our Capital videoing themselves like they were privileged to do so and sent the representives of our republican government fleeing for their very lives, I’m tired of pussy footing around this dangerous fascist ideology and I’m just calling it what it obviously is. Take a hard look Mr. Artaxes. The truth is staring you in the faces of every person in that mob, and in the “Big Lie” that Tom promoted that radicalized and incited them.
@tsalmon
I won’t deal with your logical fallacies built on unproven assumptions and your strawman arguments. Neither will I deal with your rabid baseless rant which, again, is not backed up by anything concrete that Tom has said.
I asked you for evidence and you did provide none. Therefore,I hate to say it (because I don’t want to hurt your brother’s feeling), you are a liar.
If you really are Tom’s brother then I have something with both of you in common.
I was accused by my own biological brother of being a nazi, just because I disagreed with him on immigration policies. He should have known better because we know each other for our whole lives and yet he did lie. It did hurt because it was not true.
If I really was a nazi then it wouldn’t hurt.
We love each other dearly and I know that my brother would give his life for me without a second of hesitation and yet he couldn’t help lying about me.
It would never occur to me to call him a genocidal stalinist but leftists on the other hand have no problem to call people fascists when they should know better.
Be it as it may, it takes a hell of a lot more to break the sacred bond of brotherly love and we still love each other dearly.
The only advise I can give you is, that you should listen to what your brother REALLY says and means instead of interpreting everything he says in the worst possible way just to make your political point.
Alas, not only is brotherly love the strongest kind of love I know but fights and arguments between brothers are also the most vicious ones I know.
I wish you and your brother all the best.
@artaxes
Thank you again.
Sorry about your brother, but I guess we both knows how it feels.
We are a nation built upon a belief, a Biblical belief that is the focus of this post. Because our nation founded upon belief, even families can be divided in conflict. Our beliefs are not in our genes or resident in the soil upon which we live.
Jesus made it clear that His teachings would painfully divide us.
Is there some kind of heroism in being divided from members of our family? I don’t think so. Not even worth thinking about it that way, though some do. When it is our own family that hates what we believe, it just makes it more difficult and more important that we find a way to forgive each other.
It is an old problem. When Job’s wife told him to curse God and end his suffering, what did Job do? Did he agree with her? Did he give up and curse God? No. Because she did not understand, he just chastised her gently.
Sometimes I either forget or don’t know how to be gentle. Sometimes I forget that Job was not as smart as he thought. He suffered, and he did not know why God saw fit to allow him to suffer. Sometimes, like Job, all I know to do is stick to my beliefs and pray that God will make sense of it all. And I have not even been made suddenly poor. Neither am I sitting on an ash heap mourning my dead children or covered with painful boils. I am just living in a nation full of demanding finger pointers.
Artaxes,
I am sorry for you and I am sorry for your brother. This is a sad time of delusion that we live in.
You asked me a question and I answered as honestly as I could without insulting you personally.
Go with God.
@tsalmon
@tom
Thank you both for your kind words.
I’m OK. Don’t worry. You will be OK too.
I see that you have too much fun beating the crap out of each other (figuratively) 😉
Brothers will be brothers …
@tsalmon
Fascists are not known for their tolerance. Your brother has shown more tolerance than I could ever muster.
Remember, fascism stands for the forcible suppression of opposition.
A true fascist would have banned you and everyone with radically opposing views from his blog a long time ago.
The fact that you and others with sharply differing opinions are free to comment here speaks for itself.
@ Artaxes.
Exactly. What’s ironic about the left accusing anyone who disagrees with them a “fascist” is that Fascism is actually a leftist ideology. It’s another case of accusing others of what you do yourself.
Fascism is the brainchild of Italian philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, who proffered that true democracy is when individuals willingly subordinate themselves to the state, which is the definition of Socialism! Another irony, the Nazi party were National Socialists. These are leftist ideas, not those of the right who believe in the rights of individuals and that governments is to serve the people, not the other way around.
As I’ve said here before on Tom’s blog, this is why there’s essentially no meaningful difference between groups like Antifa and Neo-Nazis.
@Mel
Respect, respect. There are not many who know the name Giovanni Gentile. You definitely know your stuff.
I fully agree. It was no coincidence that Gentile’s ideas were implemented by a former socialist.
It was easy for Mussolini to switch from socialism to fascism. Both are just different flavors of a totalitarian, collectivist system.
You’re also right that there is hardly any difference between the thugs of Antifa and the Neo-Nazi thugs.
A really funny example from Europe: Skinheads on the left and skinheads on the “right” differ only in the color of their shoestrings.
The group on the left has white shoestrings while the group on the “right” has black shoestrings. Everything else is pretty much the same.
@ artaxes.
“A really funny example from Europe: Skinheads on the left and skinheads on the “right” differ only in the color of their shoestrings.”
That’s hilarious! Reminds me of Dr. Seuss’s star-belly sneetches.
@ Tom @tsalmon
“Most of the most influential Founders were white supremacist slave holders. This is not a controversial statement. It is not disputed. It is a matter of historical fact.”
LOL! Says the 1619 Project. This statement seriously begs the question.
Tom,
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
The reason the Israelites changed to agree to a king was to unify the country to protect from invaders who took over their land and property and made them abide by their laws.
The elders warned that once a King was established, taxes, a census, and the threat of humans determining what is right instead of God would result.
All of their fears seem to be prophetic in what has occurred in the USA.
And as Rep Nancy Pelosi has aptly stated.
“The enemy is now within “the House of Representatives, or anyone who does not agree with her political views.
In my opinion, if we do not start teaching our children our religious values, this Nation will continue on the same path of other failed Nations in history who believed they are wiser than their Creator.
In other words, everything the elders in Israel feared about humans Kings ruling according to their “interpretations of what laws, rights, to follow” instead of “God’s laws of wisdom and love in the Bible”” has become evident in the news reports we are not listening and reading about in the USA.
Sad how humans never seem to wise up and keep repeating instead of learning from the mistakes of human’s laws instead of Gods, in my opinion.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
@Scatterwisdom
I don’t know whether we go the way of previous republics, but I do know our constitutional republic cannot long succeed without a People who strive for Biblical morality. The Paganism that many have adopted in recent years promotes the love of, that is, the worship of: sex, stuff, science (as a fancy excuse for sin), state, and self. Such love leads to mob rule and tyranny.
Tom.
I agree no one knows, however,
the clues are in the news,
in my opinion.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
There’s an interesting letter from Pope Gregory the Great to the newly baptized King of England in the Ecclesiastical History of England by the Venerable Bede. Of course, many American/Protestant and secular sentiments will recoil from a blurring of separation of Church and State, but following history of this nation, this was much a Jeffersonian sentiment if we note comments made by John Adams and that states at state churches. Nonetheless, Pope Gregory the Great explains that it is the head of state’s number 1 duty for the conversion of souls.
Now, pragmatically, that’s going to be hard to swallow for our fractured Christian culture in the west that exists in a post-Christian secular world. Nonetheless, I think what we can pull from the letter is an understanding that the role of the leader of the state should still be a moral leader. The President says he’s a practicing Catholic, but I could be a practicing free-throw shooter and still poor at making basketballs go into the hoop. Practicing Catholics who say personally they are pro-life, but publicly pro-choice are de facto pro-choice in their personal lives. If we examine Pope Gregory’s letter, it is the duty of the head of state to be the moral leader of their nation, abortion is a moral issue, so ultimately what side is the President siding on? Furthermore, Catholics teach that we participate in the offices of Priest, Prophet, and King in virtue of our baptism. So, fathers, for example, are heads of state of their families, they must lead both personally and publicly a life of virtue and holiness, so that they can lead by example their families to the Kingdom of Heaven.
@Phillip
Agreed! I assume this is the letter you are talking about: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/bede/history.v.i.xxxi.html. Thanks for pointing it out.
Yes. that’s the one.
The problem is that Pope Gregory’s idea of the Gospel was at complete odds with biblical salvation.
@Angel
Complete odds? That’s a bit of an overstatement. I grew up a Catholic. Since I don’t like some of Catholic Church’s teachings, when I finally repented and turned to Jesus, I went to another church. Nevertheless, I think many Catholics are Christians.
There are a great many different Christian denominations. I suspect that in the life to come we will find that none of them perfectly preached the Gospel. However, as the Apostle Paul said,
I love Catholics and have many in my family. But for their sake, we must not lend any fealty to the idea that sprinkling water on an unbelieving baby’s head confers salvation.
I’m holding out the Gospel as preached in Scripture as perfect, not any other religion.
As Paul says, if someone comes teaching something else, let them be accursed, right?
@Angel
Think about this. During the Reformation people started killing each other over when Baptism should take place. If we don’t think Baptism saves anyone, then when someone is baptized doesn’t matter.
What happens that is significant during an adult or adolescent Baptism. The new disciple makes an affirmation of faith. Catholics do that in the sacrament of Confirmation.
The Apostle Paul warned us not to argue about nonessential details. Do Protestants and Catholics have real differences? Yes, but what we have in common is more important. We love Jesus as our Savior.
People weren’t killing people over when to baptize unbelieving infants during the reformation. Luther KEPT the empty ritual.
Both groups however martyred groups of antibaptists for refusing to go against God’s Gospel and dilute it with sprinkling water on the heads of unsaved infants.
They died at the stake, many of them, rather than blaspheme the gospel.
@Angel
Religious persecution can most definitely be irrational.
And who is the arbitrator of interpreting Sacred Scripture?
At any rate, I would suppose Pope Gregory would simply say salvation comes by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ working through love, which I can easily find in the Sacred Scripture.
What you will not find in the Bible is salvation by sprinkling water on the heads of unbelieving infants.
I’m sure you’ve already decided, but for those who may read the thread..
Of course, baptism gets a bit more nuanced. Jesus references the importance of baptism in John 3 and the only formula in Sacred Scripture given is by Jesus at the end of Matthew. Households were baptized, so i can make the case its implicit in Sacred Scripture. Ultimately, the disagreement isn’t about baptism , but the development of doctrine. The bible itself doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura, it’s not even implicit, but explicit, there’s a passage in 2 Timothy about using scripture for reproof, but it doesn’t say only scripture. Furthermore, Paul appeals to lessons and teaches from speaking as clear as day in his letters
The earliest known Christian Catechism, The Didachs, makes things very c!ear.
So, bible alone is more at odds with Biblical salvation than infant baptism.
@Phillip
As I said, I don’t see much point in debating nonessential issues. When we baptize someone doesn’t much concern me. Sola Scriptura, however, addresses an essential issue. https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html and https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean/ make a good arguments for Sola Scriptura.
One problem is that when we add or take away from scripture we risk behaving like the Pharisees did. We risk making the traditions of man more important than the Word of God.
Do I expect my arguments to change your mind? No. I expect you know the arguments better than I. Nevertheless, this was largely what the Reformation was all about, and, as you observed, others may read these comments.
Does the scripture reprimand us if we add to or take away from scripture? Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Revelation 22:18-19 provide some examples. I expect there are more,
As a practical matter, even the Catholic church usually finds itself trying to demonstrate that what its clergy teaches does not conflict with scripture. The problem for the pope and the church councils is that they depend upon the Bible as the foundation of their authority. Therefore, when the pope or church councils add to or subtract from scripture, they risk undermining their own authority.
Do we need to consult Bible teachers and Bible commentaries? Sure. We also need Bible translations, but Bible scholars, Bible commentaries, and Bible translations don’t work if people think that the teachers, commentaries, and translators are not trying to be true to the original sources.
I am currently in my last year of MA in Sacred Scripture, so believe you and me, I am read and well aware of the importance of Sacred Scripture. As I alluded to in a comment to Angel, you’re right the Catholic Church would agree that Sacred Scripture is material sufficient for all its teaching, but it would simply say because Angel and I keep debating the context of passages that it is not formally sufficient, so, whereas you’d say that Popes, councils add or subtract, there is an understanding of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium to which the development/clarification of a teaching takes place usually due a heretical issue causing for such a pronouncement.
When we first meet Satan in the Bible, he is casting doubt upon the Word of God.
But all of Scripture testifies to its complete trustworthiness.
“◄ Psalm 138:2 ►
“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”
We see in Acts 8 who may be scripturally baptized, which is a full immersion:
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Yes, the ancient serpent in the garden casts doubt on the word of God, but not in any sort of written form, the point is a non sequitur, nothing of substance; maybe an ad hominem toward my actual argument?
Furthermore, your example in Acts only tells us that they went down into the water, which I can do that by walking down my hill and wading into my pond. It’s also true that the word bapto is the Greek stem, and as a former Classics student, the implications of any particular word in translation can be complex and nuanced. The word could mean immerse, but more to the context is cleansing or wash, the importance is not the action of submerging into water, but rather the washing away of sin. So, scripture doesn’t give any sort of formula in Acts using that word or any other place. The only place, as I explained where there is a formula is when Jesus actually does give one in Matt. 28.
Again, the implicit teaching of baptizing all members of the family can be brought out of the Sacred Scripture. And I would certainly say that scripture is materially sufficient for all doctrine; however, it’s fairly clear that since we’re debating the meaning of biblical passages that it lacks formal sufficiency. And this isn’t even a Catholic/Protestant issue. Many protestant denominations for example practice infant baptism and also adhere to Scripture Alone.
True enough that I am not a Protestant.