Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "John Anderson Media"
channel.
-
@sandyh5873
The assertion, that you made about Joan of Arc, isn't true. She was arrested for heresy, claiming that she heard voices from Archangel Michael, Saint Margaret and Saint Catherine. The English dominated tribunal, the English were the ENEMY, claimed that this was heretical and burned her at the stake. Why would the French rally around her when she was wearing men's clothing? It didn't seem to matter then. It was only when the English got involved that her life was in jeopardy and the reason is obvious. The English didn't want her to inspire the French into strengthening their resolve against the English.
Also, you treat the Indigenous people of the Americas as one big monolith, all believing the same thing. "Acceptance varied from tribe to tribe, however; while some gender-variant individuals were culturally integrated and held roles that contributed to their communities, others were rejected and ostracized." Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/berdache
In fact, I find the idea that ALL native Americans were all the same to be rather offensive. They had different beliefs, customs, languages and even HATED each other. The Iroquois committed genocide against the Huron of southern Ontario in 1649. Don't lump them all into one group. It takes away from the richness of their separate cultures and heritage.
77
-
68
-
33
-
26
-
11
-
6
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@SeraphsWitness
"That's CCP style tyranny." That's from my comment. Which means that I recognise that China has issues with tyranny but it's hypocritical to call them out when we're doing the same thing. People use it as a deflection like children do. "Well, Johnnie's doing it too." As if that makes it all okay. THAT'S my point. Don't call out China when you won't even admit that you're just as guilty or worse, pretend that your tyranny is justified, somehow. If you're willing to admit, that's the log, and are fighting like mad to fix it, it's not hypocritical to call out someone else who doing the same thing. That Biblical injunction goes hand in hand with hypocrisy.
You've recognised the severe issues with our hate speech laws. You're working, I hope through your voting practices anyway, to fix it and that means that metaphorically you ARE taking the mote of your own eye. You recognise the mote or beam and because of it, you CAN mention that someone else might also have problems. It's when you're actively doing it, you can't recognise the mote to even honestly criticise others. That's what I'm trying to say.
2
-
1
-
1
-
"Leftism makes you indecent". On the surface, that sounds as hateful as what Biden said in his speech, but you have to look at it a little closer. What makes this statement true is the leftist idea that they are striving for that socialist Utopia on earth. This means that anyone that disagrees with that path to Utopia, is striving to prevent that Utopia, probably for personal gain. In effect, their enemies are willing to destroy the planet, to stop their Utopia from ever coming to fruition. Case in point....climate change and environmental catastrophes. Conservatives have a difficult time falling in line with the view that the socialists have on those subjects.
Conservatives believe, for the most part, that Utopia is unachievable, in this life. "My Kingdom is not of this earth" which describes the religious Utopia, that we know as heaven, will never be a part of human existence as we know it. Instead, being the flawed creatures that we are, we are to find redemption, in order to find achieve that Utopia, in the spiritual realm and after we die. We have to hope, through our faith and how we live, that we can find the grace that gets us to that Utopian perfection after our life is over. That makes it a personal journey which smacks of selfishness and greed to the socialist which, to them, negates their socialist Utopia on earth.
We're both striving for the same thing but the socialists have a deeper commitment to a heaven on earth and any deviation from that goal must be met with force and hostility.
Of course it's a lot more complex than that but that's how I see it, anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"My Kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36. Most Christians know that since God's Kingdom doesn't exist here, it must exist elsewhere, which means that a theocracy is impossible. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" Mark 12:17 Another example of how heaven and earth are 2 separate entities. In fact, the biggest part, of the Old Testament relates how the Jewish Theocracy didn't and couldn't work. Humans are too imperfect to allow it to happen effectively over any significant length of time.
That's not to say that Republicans, better yet Christians, don't get overbearing and demanding, but the things that I've just mentioned, are at the heart of their religion.
Before you start calling me a religious kook, I'm not a Christian. However, I do know the faith quite well and have an insight into what Christianity teaches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rogermetzger7335
I'm going to say that you could apply a bit of all those methods of interpretation. However, a big influence was my upbringing in the Christian Reformed Church which is a Calvinist branch of Christianity. However, I'm looking at it now as an outsider and applying my own subsequent reading on the subject, as well.
From everything that I've been able to understand, as an objective outsider, is that Christianity sees the return of Jesus as a Kingdom that stands outside of the world as we know it. A complete transformation from the world of Satan to the world of God. This implies that perfection will not and cannot be achieved without God and his transformation.
I will say that the early church is different than the church that it became. They early Christians believed that the return of Jesus and the Kingdom of Heaven was imminent, coming at any moment. That didn't turn out to be the case and Christians had to revise the timeline of his return, which would increase the importance of how one should live their life. Instead of being here when Jesus returns, Christians have been forced to feel that it will happen AFTER they die. That has a 2 pronged effect on how they see their faith. The importance of faith becomes more nebulous as they can't claim to know someone who's grandfather had a cousin who knew Saint Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus. Their faith has to come more from within than through evidence, although that is discussed in Hebrew 11:1. Second, it means that the day to day activities of a lifetime have greater relevance as a part of how one finds redemption. Your faith must manifest itself in your works, to a certain degree, to use a religious concept.
I guess maybe I looked at your comment as an argument rather than a discussion and that may not have been the best way to approach it. However, in my defence, there is a lot of negativity on the internet and I probably responded ready to do battle. I'm sorry about that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1