ClimateSanity
New member
You don't recognize a single American culture from 1787 until 1965? I do, and that still allows for various subcultures to exist simultaneously.
Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
Last edited:
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they are agreed?
Foxfire
Well-known member
Soooo, exactly WHEN has the entire United States EVER been in agreement? :doh:
ClimateSanity
New member
Too much for you to understand and therefore you mock it?Spoiler
Spoiler
Oh, I understood you. You mistake color for culture and the presence of minorities as an allowance. If you don't do something about that you'll be a part of the actual problem at some point instead of the thing that makes the problem possible.
ClimateSanity
New member
If you think I mistake color for culture, you didn't understand it at all. Quit mind reading and try reading it as is.
Okay, boy genius. Here's a part of the education your sorely need. When you mark 1965 as a line of demarcation, directly following passage of the Civil Rights Act and absent any qualification you invite race as the distinguishing factor in your estimation of culture. When you compound that with something as sad as "allow" you demonstrate a further ignorance of our foundation in law.
If you don't want to be misunderstood try being forthcoming. So what other thing did you mean? What significance otherwise is there in the year you choose? By all means, do what you should have done to begin with and let us know.
ClimateSanity
New member
Okay, boy genius. Here's a part of the education your sorely need. When you mark 1965 as a line of demarcation, directly following passage of the Civil Rights Act and absent any qualification you invite race as the distinguishing factor in your estimation of culture......town.
Only if the person in question thinks like you do. There are reasons for those demarcations that go beyond the ability of your biased perception to recognize. More proof you live in a bubble and have no awareness of existence outside of it.
Only if the person in question thinks like you do. There are reasons for those demarcations that go beyond the ability of your biased perception to recognize. More proof you live in a bubble and have no awareness of existence outside of it.
ClimateSanity
New member
Then you blabber on about a foundation of law. Where did I bring up law? I didn't. Read what I say and not what you think I should have said. You want one more stab at trying to understand what I wrote?
ClimateSanity
New member
I didn't choose 1965 because of the civil rights act imbecile. Get your mind on something else besides race. That's part of whats wrong with this country.
Culture has its root in Babel and its purpose in the will of Yah Veh Elohim. Once the languages were mixed it brought in suspicion, misunderstanding, ignorance, rivalries, war and the list goes on. The people were spread out and became autonomous.
The USA is founded in rebellion against the judgement at Babel. Mankind has once again said, "we will build and do great things together". The nation pays lip service to Elohim, but deny and refuse His Sovereign Rule over man.
The first line of the Constitution reads, "We the people". These three words establish the foundation of the US government. The concept is known as "popular sovereignty" and derives from the consent of the people.
This exposes the attitude of every single citizen of the nation that lives under this contrived doctrine. You agree with the form of religion you boast of as long as the object of worship agrees with the consent of the people and their will.
The people that live under this constitution hold it, the nation, the flag and the ultimate aims and rights of the people in higher regard than the Creator and sustainer of all.
The people that live in the "land of the free" are slaves to the sins of rebellion, idolatry and pride.
You have heard the word repent. May I humbly suggest you do so.
The USA is founded in rebellion against the judgement at Babel. Mankind has once again said, "we will build and do great things together". The nation pays lip service to Elohim, but deny and refuse His Sovereign Rule over man.
The first line of the Constitution reads, "We the people". These three words establish the foundation of the US government. The concept is known as "popular sovereignty" and derives from the consent of the people.
This exposes the attitude of every single citizen of the nation that lives under this contrived doctrine. You agree with the form of religion you boast of as long as the object of worship agrees with the consent of the people and their will.
The people that live under this constitution hold it, the nation, the flag and the ultimate aims and rights of the people in higher regard than the Creator and sustainer of all.
The people that live in the "land of the free" are slaves to the sins of rebellion, idolatry and pride.
You have heard the word repent. May I humbly suggest you do so.
ClimateSanity
New member
Repent of what?
If you need to ask, you won't see the need, even if told. As you have been.
ClimateSanity
New member
For instance, how am I a slave to the sin of rebellion by being a citizen of the United States?
Try reading what I have posted instead of thinking you know what is posted.
I once gave you a detailed explanation of what repentance is and you said you understood. You obviously didn't and the only conclusion is that you haven't been granted understanding.
ClimateSanity
New member
The people that live in the "land of the free" are slaves to the sins of rebellion, idolatry and pride.
ClimateSanity
New member
That says Americans are slaves to the sins of rebellion, idolatry and pride. Am I incorrect?
It is apparently inherent in man that, on the whole, the more a thing or person is like us the more comfortable we are and the more they differ the greater the degree of discomfort. It's a principle observable in the benign, like your circle of friends, or the troublesome, say Nazis.
You might as well say the world is steeped in rebellion through sin. But we have to live together and governments are formed or imposed to produce the structure to do that.
Though to be fair, Patrick Henry's younger brother Doug launched the "do crappy things apart" party and it just went nowhere...or all over the place. It was pretty disorganized.
lain:No, it denies the rule of a few people self appointed to represent Him.
Again, Doug's "They the people" just wasn't selling. Who were they, really? And what did they want?
Spot on. :thumb:
Every doctrine is contrived.
Rather, the founders of our nation saw first hand and beyond what happened when men integrated religious and political authority. Disagreements over exegesis could lay waste to a continent.
No, that's not it at all, really. They just don't trust people like you to tell them how their love of God should be manifest and how it shouldn't.
Stop it, Doug.
I can't speak for everyone (if you can imagine) but I'd be happy to see you humbly suggest anything.
Here's the problem: the year you chose is mostly important because of the thing I noted. So when you choose it and fail, literally fail to mark what's special about it in any other way, you invite the reasonable inference.
Sounds great. What were they again? Or, more to the point, what were they for the first time?
Then this will be simple: why did you choose it? Why is that the line of demarcation? I can't wait to find out what that alternate reason is....let's see it.
Because so far this is it: