So, no specific examples then?
The Final Quest
- Thread starter Lazy afternoon
- Start date
So, no specific examples then?
You said he has ambitions to overturn the Constitution. You're just a liar. Same with 'fleecing' somebody.
Maybe you don't mean to be a liar, but that's what you are when you don't bridle your emotions. You don't like him for whatever reasons, that we get. Doesn't make if right for you to make up stuff about him.
I'm not sure where your blind spot is, but Dominionist theology specifically seeks to rule others in a conservative christian theocracy.
So we are talking about overturning the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and I would guess many other changes to freedoms protected in that amendment, doing something nasty to the Ninth Amendment regarding civil rights and especially health care, changes or repeals to the Government processes and procedures amendments (you can't run a theocracy if you're at risk of being voted out), likely a significant rewrite or rejection of Article Three because the application of biblical law would have to be significantly different, severe friction over Article Four as individual states tried to secede from what would probably become a totalitarian regime (christianity is by nature fascist and totalitarian), probable deletion of Article Five due to the difficulty of passing theocratic amendments, and destruction of Article Six and it's banning of religious tests for office.
I think they would have to go for a rewrite, don't you? Probably most of that shower of morons would just hold up the bible and grunt platitudes like "This is our constitution, people". And we are not even talking about the extremists in this.
Stuart
What you are doing is despicable. You label him a 'dominionist', choose a narrow and extreme definition, then write a 300 word essay falsely representing his beliefs.
As I said, he must be a really great person if you can't lay a charge that's actually true.
Here, let me try to help you. IIRC, he once tried to do a drug deal with someone from the Beatles. Don't dirty yourself trying to smear him.
As I said, he must be a really great person if you can't lay a charge that's actually true.
Here, let me try to help you. IIRC, he once tried to do a drug deal with someone from the Beatles. Don't dirty yourself trying to smear him.
That's just not good enough when you slander someone.
Well, that's what he believes. He doesn't strike me as savvy enough to carry any of it out.
Hear him say it himself. Don't be put off by his claims to 'restore the constitution'. What he is advocating is a coup d'etat:
| Rick Joyner's Dominionist Solution For America | |
Stuart
This is just a human interest story. One of his kids is an environmental activist. I haven't been around that ministry in many years but I'd expect abortion activists instead. This, to me, speaks well. The kid (29 years old) is growing in her own, independent thoughts about what the world needs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dLYzhmXocc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dLYzhmXocc
musterion
Well-known member
Pretty cut and dried. He may not be one advocating for direct takeover by professing Christians but he sympathizes.
It's a dire warning for sure. But, he thinks the Republic is floundering, he isn't calling for it to flounder.
Why should I believe you regarding his intentions instead of believing what he himself said? He wants to restore the republic AND the Constitution.
Look, I've had my differences with Mr. Joyner. I've been over on his Facebook page ranting recently trying to see if I could make an impact. We're 18 trillion in debt; we've been running around the world toppling governments and throwing nations into chaos; we're looking at idiot Zionist presidential candidates trying to hurtle us into WWIII; terror attacks are looming (false flag or not).
Things are dire. But, what's the cause? Find something about which you legitimately disagree with Joyner. If you make it up then you accrue to yourself 'liar' status.
To-restore-the-Constitution...if need be.
Do you think this might be a subtle hint?:
| Why the Church Needs to Get Involved in Politics | |
Or this?
Stuart
I get 15G of bandwidth for the month so I'll check it tonight. I'd think this board loves Boykin, he seems to be clueless about 9/11 and thinks it's all the Muslims fault
I did jump it up to the 2:00 mark of your video, however. He was talking about restoring the Constitution.
I have not lied about anything.
From the Constitution (the one he wants to 'restore'):
| 18 USC Chapter 115 § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection - Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. |
It looks like he is well on the way to excluding himself as theocratic dictator of the Christian Republic of North America.
Unless he amends that bit of the constitution when the US is under martial law.
| 18 USC Chapter 115 § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy - If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. |
So that's 20 years in prison. How old will his daughters be by then?
A military coup could end really badly for him, but I guess there is always the hope of salvation as he goes to the chair. Surely it won't come to that. He's not bright enough.
| 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason - Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. |
Stuart
I wrongly figured you'd know the distinction between the Constitution and USC. There is another document, separate, the Declaration of Independence. It talks about the consent of the governed and throwing off tyranny.
Anything he is talking about regarding martial law is toward getting us back to the Constitution and the United States. Where I've disagreed with him is where the threat is coming from. I'm sure much of the heat Obama has gotten has been for refusing to start another war with Iran and for dragging his feet on toppling Assad.
PureX
Well-known member
It's interesting to me that these same armageddon fantasies are capturing the minds of so many religious Christians that the authors can actually make a living writing them out and selling them. It's clearly an illuminating trend, I think.
And instead of buying and reading these kinds of books, these Christians should be asking themselves why they are so taken by these horrific tales of grotesque suffering and abuse by the gods and demons they choose to believe in. Because these kinds of fantasies are not the sort of thing that people with healthy hearts minds are drawn to. They are the sort of thing that people with very sick hearts and minds are drawn to. They are fantasies of torture and death, and of devastating vengeance. Seems to me that only very troubled and angry people would be drawn to this sort of anti-fantasy.
And instead of buying and reading these kinds of books, these Christians should be asking themselves why they are so taken by these horrific tales of grotesque suffering and abuse by the gods and demons they choose to believe in. Because these kinds of fantasies are not the sort of thing that people with healthy hearts minds are drawn to. They are the sort of thing that people with very sick hearts and minds are drawn to. They are fantasies of torture and death, and of devastating vengeance. Seems to me that only very troubled and angry people would be drawn to this sort of anti-fantasy.
I don't know his eschatology. I do know this, he has an emphasis of the Kingdom of God rising up more and more in the earth (that has nothing to do with guns pointed at homosexuals and atheists).
It says 'Christian'. How do you deal with the Flood; Sodom and Gomorrah; David's punishment for numbering the Israelites; or the famine caused by Saul's offenses?
FTR- what brought me back was this idea of the 'last days'. Whether it's the last days of theocratic Israel or last days of the church.
Well I am grateful for you pointing that out. I'm not American so I haven't had the benefit of your education in your own codes and constitution. I will retract my statement that these codes are from the constitution (even though the right to make them and the limits on them are established by the constitution).
So you would say that a coup d'etat is a convincing way of restoring the Constitution? Isn't that breaking Article One of the constitution in order to to restore it?
What about the objectives of this Dominionist theology that clearly aren't compatible with the Constitution?
He has a democratic right to run for office (as long as the FBI don't arrest him on charges of sedition on the evidence of that video). So why doesn't he do that, and use his constitutional rights to 'restore the constitution'?
He knows that the American people wouldn't agree to his constitutional 'restoration'. And that's in the US, which is pretty much a defacto theocracy anyway! If you're not going to have godly christian government in the US, where are you going to have it? Malta? (Maybe that's why he is a member of the Knights of Malta - Malta is virtually a Catholic theocracy).
I think it is obvious that he doesn't actually want the Constitution in its current form. Joyner-controlled houses would be amending so fast you wouldn't recognise the thing inside a couple of years. You may as well call it an overturn.
If it was me, I'd be very careful what allegiances I made with these people. And I certainly wouldn't be sending them cash.
Stuart