Jump to content

God and King George


Recommended Posts

"I will kill your friends and family to remind you of my love." -lyrics from King George's song You'll be Back in Hamilton though I'm more of a Jeffersonian myself.

Sounds quite similar to the God of the Old Testament, and during Old Testament times of the BoM as well.

So then, if King George who had supplied troops, supplies, etc. to the colonists for years is forgotten by his subjects - similar to those who forgot and forget God - how is King George astray when he is trying to act like God, the highest example any of us can follow?

In other words, if God and King George are using parallel arguments, how can one of them be correct and the other incorrect?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

"I will kill your friends and family to remind you of my love." -lyrics from King George's song You'll be Back in Hamilton though I'm more of a Jeffersonian myself.

Sounds quite similar to the God of the Old Testament, and during Old Testament times of the BoM as well.

So then, if King George who had supplied troops, supplies, etc. to the colonists for years is forgotten by his subjects - similar to those who forgot and forget God - how is King George astray when he is trying to act like God, the highest example any of us can follow?

In other words, if God and King George are using parallel arguments, how can one of them be correct and the other incorrect?

When exactly did God say that he would kill people to remind them of his love.  The basic theme I get from the scriptures is God calls people to repent and gives them ample time to repent but eventually that time runs out when they get so wicked that they need to be removed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

In other words, if God and King George are using parallel arguments, how can one of them be correct and the other incorrect?

"If."

Thanks,

Smac

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

"I will kill your friends and family to remind you of my love." -lyrics from King George's song You'll be Back in Hamilton though I'm more of a Jeffersonian myself.

Sounds quite similar to the God of the Old Testament, and during Old Testament times of the BoM as well.

So then, if King George who had supplied troops, supplies, etc. to the colonists for years is forgotten by his subjects - similar to those who forgot and forget God - how is King George astray when he is trying to act like God, the highest example any of us can follow?

In other words, if God and King George are using parallel arguments, how can one of them be correct and the other incorrect?

So you are ascribing the words of a musical written centuries after the fact to describe the mind of a king and comparing them to apocalyptic scripture? You need treatment for your brain worms stat!

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So you are ascribing the words of a musical written centuries after the fact to describe the mind of a king and comparing them to apocalyptic scripture? You need treatment for your brain worms stat!

Anybody who doesn't see the world as you do, Anonymous-Possibly-Male-Internet-Entity, has brain worms?  Gimme a break!      You've posted your share of sh** here, it's just that you're completely oblivious to the fact that yours really doesn't smell like roses.  In fact, it smells as bad as anyone else's.  Get over yourself. <_<:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

"I will kill your friends and family to remind you of my love." -lyrics from King George's song You'll be Back in Hamilton though I'm more of a Jeffersonian myself.

Sounds quite similar to the God of the Old Testament, and during Old Testament times of the BoM as well.

So then, if King George who had supplied troops, supplies, etc. to the colonists for years is forgotten by his subjects - similar to those who forgot and forget God - how is King George astray when he is trying to act like God, the highest example any of us can follow?

In other words, if God and King George are using parallel arguments, how can one of them be correct and the other incorrect?

King George and Lord North were only too happy to charge the colonists taxes, but refused to allow the colonists to elect members of Parliament ("taxation without representation").  The Founding Fathers did not want to separate from Britain, and remonstrated for years with the Crown to reach some sort of understanding, but all to no avail.  They were loyal subjects of King and Country and did not want to turn traitor.  Yet that is exactly what they had to do.  And they did it in the full knowledge of the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 in England, in which all the wrongs they were complaining of had been done to their forefathers, leading the English to rise up and overthrow their king.  Our cherished Bill of Rights comes directly from the laws passed by Parliament in that Glorious Revolution.  Few Americans realize that our own Revolution was merely a repeat of an earlier Revolution.

King George was not God.  He was a mentally unbalanced fool.  He and Lord North could easily have accommodated their American colonists.  Their stupidity is extraordinary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Anybody who doesn't see the world as you do, Anonymous-Possibly-Male-Internet-Entity, has brain worms?  Gimme a break!      You've posted your share of sh** here, it's just that you're completely oblivious to the fact that yours really doesn't smell like roses.  In fact, it smells as bad as anyone else's.  Get over yourself. <_<:rolleyes:

If you are defending the OP’s insane comparison then the brain worms might be contagious.

Everyone should wear a mask while perusing this thread.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
Link to post
38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

King George and Lord North were only too happy to charge the colonists taxes, but refused to allow the colonists to elect members of Parliament ("taxation without representation").  The Founding Fathers did not want to separate from Britain, and remonstrated for years with the Crown to reach some sort of understanding, but all to no avail.  They were loyal subjects of King and Country and did not want to turn traitor.  Yet that is exactly what they had to do.  And they did it in the full knowledge of the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 in England, in which all the wrongs they were complaining of had been done to their forefathers, leading the English to rise up and overthrow their king.  Our cherished Bill of Rights comes directly from the laws passed by Parliament in that Glorious Revolution.  Few Americans realize that our own Revolution was merely a repeat of an earlier Revolution.

King George was not God.  He was a mentally unbalanced fool.  He and Lord North could easily have accommodated their American colonists.  Their stupidity is extraordinary.

I doubt they could have satisfied the colonists. Taxation in the Americas was much lower then in Britain. It had recently increased but the British were (arguably justifiably) trying to recoup the costs of the French and Indian War from those who benefitted from the victory.

if the colonies were given parliamentary representation other colonies (Canada, Africa, India, Austalia) would likely demand the same. As egalitarian as that sounds it likely would have led to a paralyzed government.

I think the Revolution was justifiable but I do not think the British could have satisfied the colonists for long.

I do find a twisted irony that the racial injustices we are grappling with now are of a much more egregious nature than those that led to the Revolution but, for some reason, the idea of a revolt now is seen as unjustified and terrifying.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

the idea of a revolt now is seen as unjustified and terrifying.

The communication of the central government with the people it governs is much more direct and immediate, so at the very least the immediate response to complaints helps present it as unjustified, iow propaganda can be tailor made and adjusted quickly if not working.  
 

Mass destruction is easier, less ability to be successful in revolting.

We are also in a more comfortable and stable position, so the risk of war in our backyard is possibly more disconcerting. Also few of us have actually gone through war and the unknown is always terrifying.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If you are defending the OP’s insane comparison then the brain worms might be contagious.

Everyone should wear a mask while perusing this thread.

 

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Anybody who doesn't see the world as you do, Anonymous-Possibly-Male-Internet-Entity, has brain worms?  Gimme a break!      You've posted your share of sh** here, it's just that you're completely oblivious to the fact that yours really doesn't smell like roses.  In fact, it smells as bad as anyone else's.  Get over yourself. <_<:rolleyes:

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It could be argued both ways, of course, and an independent America turned out to be the best friend Britain ever had.  Meantime, some sort of reasonable accommodation could have been found to prevent the complete alienation of the American colonies.  Certainly the high handed kidnapping of colonists and impressing them into service in the British Navy was symptomatic.  Yankee Doodle got no respect.  The Brits didn't even try.

A revolt in a fully democratic system makes no sense at all, just as it made no democratic sense for the Bolsheviks to overthrow the Kerensky govt in Russia.  The reason for the revolt in Russia, and the current revolt in the USA is Marxist, and is dedicated to the overthrow of democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.  ANTIFA and BLM are doing this by throwing Dr Martin Luther King Jr under the buss in instituting a new form of racism in America.  The effort has nothing to do with racial injustice, but is dedicated to a Maoist Cultural Revolution.

The impressment of sailors is one of the most justifiable causes for the Revolution. It is ironic that we then fought the War of 1812 over the same thing even though by then historians are convinced the French were impressing more sailors than the British and we were pretty much on their side.

The United States is not a fully democratic system and yes, revolts in democracies make sense. They are even normal. Athenian democracy was much more democratic than ours and they faced all kinds of coups and upsets and the like.

”We need the police to stop killing us and unfairly targeting us!”

”COMMUNISM! THEY WANT COMMUNISM THE FILTHY COMMIES!!!!”

That kind of rhetoric makes the revolution you fear more likely.

Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The impressment of sailors is one of the most justifiable causes for the Revolution. It is ironic that we then fought the War of 1812 over the same thing even though by then historians are convinced the French were impressing more sailors than the British and we were pretty much on their side.

The United States is not a fully democratic system and yes, revolts in democracies make sense. They are even normal. Athenian democracy was much more democratic than ours and they faced all kinds of coups and upsets and the like.

”We need the police to stop killing us and unfairly targeting us!”

”COMMUNISM! THEY WANT COMMUNISM THE FILTHY COMMIES!!!!”

That kind of rhetoric makes the revolution you fear more likely.

The neo-Marxism in academia is nothing new.  Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray have been denouncing it for years as the true enemy of the open society and of free inquiry, and they are correct.

The brilliance of the American system is that it assumes that men are not angels, that all manner of skulduggery is constantly afoot, but that we can avoid destructive solutions by allowing our democratic process to proceed as designed.  That doesn't guarantee perfection (or anything like it), but it does provide reasonable solutions in the course to time -- short of murder and mayhem, which is the alternative.  The separation of powers in the three branches of the central govt, along with checks and balances, prevent things from going completely off the rails.  We destroy that at our peril.  Why?  Because it will certainly be replaced by either anarchy or by an Orwellian nightmare of the sort envisioned by the late Senator Frank Church.  Personally, I believe that the latter is most likely -- perhaps in a decade, when Artificial Intelligence takes over.

  • Like 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The neo-Marxism in academia is nothing new.  Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray have been denouncing it for years as the true enemy of the open society and of free inquiry, and they are correct.

Uh-huh, that is what they have been saying. So now the protesters are all academics?

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The brilliance of the American system is that it assumes that men are not angels, that all manner of skulduggery is constantly afoot, but that we can avoid destructive solutions by allowing our democratic process to proceed as designed.  That doesn't guarantee perfection (or anything like it), but it does provide reasonable solutions in the course to time -- short of murder and mayhem, which is the alternative.  The separation of powers in the three branches of the central govt, along with checks and balances, prevent things from going completely off the rails.  We destroy that at our peril.  Why?  Because it will certainly be replaced by either anarchy or by an Orwellian nightmare of the sort envisioned by the late Senator Frank Church.  Personally, I believe that the latter is most likely -- perhaps in a decade, when Artificial Intelligence takes over.

We spent the last four years tearing down those safeguards. It is also not foolproof. There is no protection when society becomes wicked enough.

I love how the only alternative to the status quo is anarchy or dystopia. No possibility of things getting better?

We are also nowhere near the level of artificial intelligence needed to take over and even if we were the robot uprising would be a colossal joke: https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/

Edit: It is also worth noting that the Civil Rights Movement which you lauded above was called communist when it happened by the spiritual predecessors of those who call the current movement communist. A suspicious and cynical person might suspect they just call any movement they do not like communist out of a combination of intellectual laziness and its scare value.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2
Link to post
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Uh-huh, that is what they have been saying. So now the protesters are all academics?

It found a special niche in academia early on, with Marcuse, his student Angela Davis, and a myriad of others.  Decades later it has spread to the street, with white SJWs screaming racial epithets and throwing Molotov cocktails.  They are not protestors.  They are rioting thugs.

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We spent the last four years tearing down those safeguards. It is also not foolproof. There is no protection when society becomes wicked enough.

I love how the only alternative to the status quo is anarchy or dystopia. No possibility of things getting better?

Nobody expects perfection.  I thought I made that clear.  Also the doctrine of progress has always been a lie.  The alternative to the open society is totalitarianism, Nehor.  For all its faults, American democracy is indeed better than the alternatives.

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We are also nowhere near the level of artificial intelligence needed to take over and even if we were the robot uprising would be a colossal joke: https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/

AI is not robots.  It is central digital processors which can dominate just because we will have allowed them to.  It isn't only Moore's Law which has consistently predicted our digital future.  The real problem will be a self-aware AI which is smarter than we are.  Max Tegmark, Elon Musk, and the late Stephen Hawking have deeply worried about that.  Hey, what do they know?

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Edit: It is also worth noting that the Civil Rights Movement which you lauded above was called communist when it happened by the spiritual predecessors of those who call the current movement communist. A suspicious and cynical person might suspect they just call any movement they do not like communist out of a combination of intellectual laziness and its scare value.

Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr, and the late Congressman John Lewis (whom we just buried) were not communists (if there is such a thing) nor Marxists.  They followed the example set by Jesus and Mohandas K. Gandhi in the high ethical and moral appeal of non-violence.  They were deeply respectful of the Constitution and the rule of law, and they loved this country.  And they actually accomplished something, unlike the current ANTIFA and BLM street thugs.

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 9/13/2020 at 12:16 AM, The Nehor said:

So you are ascribing the words of a musical written centuries after the fact to describe the mind of a king and comparing them to apocalyptic scripture? You need treatment for your brain worms stat!

It's actually a brain cloud

Link to post
17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A revolt in a fully democratic system makes no sense at all, just as it made no democratic sense for the Bolsheviks to overthrow the Kerensky govt in Russia.  The reason for the revolt in Russia, and the current revolt in the USA is Marxist, and is dedicated to the overthrow of democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.  ANTIFA and BLM are doing this by throwing Dr Martin Luther King Jr under the bus in instituting a new form of racism in America.  The effort has nothing to do with racial injustice, but is dedicated to a Maoist Cultural Revolution.

Truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLMvsSy_dDA 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The neo-Marxism in academia is nothing new.  Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray have been denouncing it for years as the true enemy of the open society and of free inquiry, and they are correct.

The brilliance of the American system is that it assumes that men are not angels, that all manner of skulduggery is constantly afoot, but that we can avoid destructive solutions by allowing our democratic process to proceed as designed.  That doesn't guarantee perfection (or anything like it), but it does provide reasonable solutions in the course to time -- short of murder and mayhem, which is the alternative.  The separation of powers in the three branches of the central govt, along with checks and balances, prevent things from going completely off the rails.  We destroy that at our peril.  Why?  Because it will certainly be replaced by either anarchy or by an Orwellian nightmare of the sort envisioned by the late Senator Frank Church.  Personally, I believe that the latter is most likely -- perhaps in a decade, when Artificial Intelligence takes over.

The current corruption, oppression, ignorance, and the lack of institutional repentance are much more dangerous to democracy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The current corruption, oppression, ignorance, and the lack of institutional repentance are much more dangerous to democracy.

In most of the urban centers, sure.  Not convinced that really pertains to suburbia and rural America, though.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

In most of the urban centers, sure.  Not convinced that really pertains to suburbia and rural America, though.  

Can you elaborate? I don't know what you mean to say with this comment.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Can you elaborate? I don't know what you mean to say with this comment.

I mean, most of the most egregious incidents of police brutality—as well as many  of the most notoriously corrupt, oppressive, ignorant, ignorant, and impenitent local officials (as well as the most passionate public reactions thereto) seem to be happening in places like Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Washington.

Not sure how much more I can say without a mod deciding that the discussion is getting overly politicized. ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I mean, most of the most egregious incidents of police brutality—as well as many  of the most notoriously corrupt, oppressive, ignorant, ignorant, and impenitent local officials (as well as the most passionate public reactions thereto) seem to be happening in places like Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Washington.

Not sure how much more I can say without a mod deciding that the discussion is getting overly politicized. ;) 

There's still sundown towns and widespread discrimination by government agencies in rural America. And devastating corruption in the executive branch impacting both urban and rural America.

Link to post
16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Edit: It is also worth noting that the Civil Rights Movement which you lauded above was called communist when it happened by the spiritual predecessors of those who call the current movement communist. A suspicious and cynical person might suspect they just call any movement they do not like communist out of a combination of intellectual laziness and its scare value.

In some cases, yes. (To be fair, not all: there are LDS believers who support BLM.)

image.png.1c7c8a37be4b7eeeaebbd809eb5cf517.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

In some cases, yes. (To be fair, not all: there are LDS believers who support BLM.)

image.png.1c7c8a37be4b7eeeaebbd809eb5cf517.png

I actually though of that quote when I wrote my post. It was foolishness then and it is still foolishness now.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The current corruption, oppression, ignorance, and the lack of institutional repentance are much more dangerous to democracy.

That's the American people for you, shot through with ignorance and corruption.  Institutions cannot and do not repent, by the way.  That is the pathetic fallacy.  Humans can repent, if they choose to do so.  Of course, the Supreme Court has protected the sick notion that corporations are individuals and can be treated like people under the law (Citizens United).  https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution  .

Yet, the disputatious nature of the American people is also the warp and woof of the democratic process.  The people get the govt they vote for, and deserve, be it good or bad.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...