The Disconnect Between Christians & the Freedom Movement Protest Groups...

a reply to: TinfoilTophat

Some among us are willing to suffer in order to obtain justice for our kin.

But you're correct, we shouldn't fight against our brother, as evil as he may be.

To denounce and bring light to their actions should suffice, but it just comes short of it.


People don't know right from wrong, it's simply true.

There is no consensus on the accepted reality we share.

Our calls for justice are lost in the noise among the deaf.


So some choose to take action.

They suffer for your good.

You know of One.


^_^

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
......I live in the second most free country in the world on this list, and do not feel in the slightest bit oppressed, enslaved, or imprisoned.

The most powerful prison one could ever find themselves in is one that they don't see as a prison and don't want to leave.

I can't speak for the freedom movement as a whole, but I can speak for myself as someone who supports the notions they espouse. Anarchy isn't the right word. I'm not sure we have a word for it. It most closely resembles the structure that the founding fathers in the USA desired. Government should be restricted to the absolute minimum and should be kept on a very very very tight leash. Government is a necessary evil, not a benevolence. Power corrupts by its very nature.

If you're seriously trying to equate "I should have a choice" to "do what thou wilt", the programming of your prison is working extremely well.

originally posted by: MrGashler

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
......I live in the second most free country in the world on this list, and do not feel in the slightest bit oppressed, enslaved, or imprisoned.

The most powerful prison one could ever find themselves in is one that they don't see as a prison and don't want to leave.

Really?

I live on an island nation, in the Pacific, where I can (and recently have) fly off to any other country of my choice for a couple of hundred dollars, where I have unrestricted access to all sorts of luxuries, have a number of motor vehicles and have all sorts of assets and resources. Where I have freedom of religious worship, freedom of association, have access to affordable health services (some of them even fully subsidized by my government). Unrestricted access to the Internet and news. Full recourse to the law. I have actually been in government (not just voting for it). And I am fairly happy here, with the love of my family, and a community of friends.

And you think that is a mind-prison?

I can't speak for the freedom movement as a whole, but I can speak for myself as someone who supports the notions they espouse. Anarchy isn't the right word. I'm not sure we have a word for it. It most closely resembles the structure that the founding fathers in the USA desired. Government should be restricted to the absolute minimum and should be kept on a very very very tight leash. Government is a necessary evil, not a benevolence. Power corrupts by its very nature.

If you're seriously trying to equate "I should have a choice" to "do what thou wilt", the programming of your prison is working extremely well.

The Freedom movement offers no 'freedoms' that you don't already fully have.

Theirs is entirely a jingoistic propagandist use of the word "freedom" to support the paranoid delusion that everyone is plotting against them (even to the point that they think others around them are in some sort of mental prison).

Smell the coffee, go for a walk, in the sunshine, perhaps by a beach or other area of natural beauty. Smile at total strangers. De-stress a bit. Try it, the world will look vastly different.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes yes, I understand that you live in New Zealand and find it to be wonderful and all the other pretty words. Let me play you a joyful song.

Yes. You live in a prison.

I enjoy literally all the same comforts, luxuries, and "rights" that you do. I even enjoy rights and privileges that you do not.

And yet, I live in a prison as well.

Having an understanding about the true nature of the world you live in doesn't prevent you from enjoying the little things in life. I'm not an overly stressed person, nor do I have an inherently negative view about the world and the future.
I am simply aware enough to understand that I live in a prison that is meant to keep me complacent and comfortable so that I don't want to fight back or resist as my agency in the world is slowly stolen from me.

Rose colored glasses don't change the reality of the world. They only change the color of the boot on your neck.

It is interesting that you mentioned Orwell in a previous comment with regards to the definition of freedom, because you are totally oblivious to the fact that you are so deeply programmed you can't see the cell bars in front of your face. In some ways I envy you in that.
You don't believe you're lacking freedoms because you don't think that the things you're lacking even are freedoms.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes yes, I understand that you live in New Zealand and find it to be wonderful and all the other pretty words. Let me play you a joyful song.

Yes. You live in a prison.

I enjoy literally all the same comforts, luxuries, and "rights" that you do. I even enjoy rights and privileges that you do not.

Under the US Bill of Rights:

You have no stated right to a living income.
You have no stated right to work.
You have no stated right to healthcare.
You have no stated right to housing.
You have no stated right to gender equity.
You have no stated right of residence.
You have no stated right of freedom of movement.
You have no stated right to identity.
You have no stated right to life.

And yes, the 14th amendment is usually the one that is applied to many of these, but it doesn't explicitly state any of them, so if if it's not a stated right, it's just not.

And I don't have any right to carry a weapon (by the way, I can legally carry a weapon, it's just that it isn't framed as a right), and I haven't ever really had need to do so, ever. But in the US, when they were framing the basics, it was the second thing they thought of? Sucks to be in a country where carrying a weapon for defense is a human need.

[quoted]And yet, I live in a prison as well.


No, you live under an oppressive and tyrannical system that alleges the worst of everywhere else in the world.

There is a little bit of freedom there, but It sure has lots of prisons:

Incarceration Rates by Country 2023 - Did you notice something? A bit weird for somewhere that claims to be the pinnacle of 'freedom'?

I suggest you travel (if you are so free) and take in the world 'outside'.

Having an understanding about the true nature of the world you live in doesn't prevent you from enjoying the little things in life. I'm not an overly stressed person, nor do I have an inherently negative view about the world and the future.
I am simply aware enough to understand that I live in a prison that is meant to keep me complacent and comfortable so that I don't want to fight back or resist as my agency in the world is slowly stolen from me.

Rose colored glasses don't change the reality of the world. They only change the color of the boot on your neck.

We aren't in your country. There are no boots on our necks. We can all 'breathe' quite freely in that regard.

It is interesting that you mentioned Orwell in a previous comment with regards to the definition of freedom, because you are totally oblivious to the fact that you are so deeply programmed you can't see the cell bars in front of your face. In some ways I envy you in that.
You don't believe you're lacking freedoms because you don't think that the things you're lacking even are freedoms.

The 12 Categories of the Human Freedom Index:
*Rule of Law
*Security and Safety
*Movement
*Religion
*Association, Assembly, and Civil Society
*Expression and Information
*Identity and Relationships
*Size of Government
*Legal System and Property Rights
*Access to Sound Money
*Freedom to Trade Internationally
* Regulation

New Zealand. second in freedom index in the world, behind Sweden.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
... Far too many Christians are utterly naive in trusting their leaders, and in trusting institutions which have in recent years proven themselves utterly corrrupt & shameless, such as the European Union & even the United Nations. ...

No wonder, history shows how the churches and the politicians in their pews preached the League of Nations first and its successor, the United Nations, now. The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America called that League of Nations “the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth.”

True, ever since the inception of the United Nations, the principal religions of the world have pledged their support to that organization. Referring to its 50th anniversary, Pope John Paul II spoke of the United Nations as “the instrument par excellence for promoting and safeguarding peace.” His sentiments are shared by a global community of religious leaders.

On the day the UN Charter was signed, an editorial in The New York Times labeled it “the tree of peace” and said, “A great hope is born . . . Great things may come.” Similarly, church leaders have labeled the UN “the sole hope” for peace and “the last hope.” For example, on its 20th anniversary, in June 1965, representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, together with Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims​—said to represent 2 billion of earth’s population—​assembled in San Francisco to celebrate their support and admiration of the UN. On visiting the UN in October 1965, Pope Paul VI described it as “that greatest of all international organizations” and added: “The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace.” Pope John Paul II, addressing the UN in October 1979, said: “I hope the United Nations will ever remain the supreme forum of peace and justice.” Significantly, the pope gave very little attention to Jesus Christ or to God’s Kingdom in his speech. During his visit to the United States in September 1987, as reported by The New York Times, “John Paul spoke at length about the positive role of the United Nations in promoting . . . ‘new worldwide solidarity.’”

He showed his support for the UN, saying: “That organization exists to serve the common good of the human family, and therefore it is fitting that the pope speak there as a witness to the hope of the Gospel.” He added: “Our prayer for peace is therefore also a prayer for the United Nations Organization. Saint Francis of Assisi . . . shines forth as a great lover and artisan of peace. Let us invoke his intercession upon the United Nations’ work for justice and peace throughout the world.”

The UN is actually a blasphemous counterfeit of God’s Messianic Kingdom by his Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ​—to whose princely rule there will be no end. (Isaiah 9:6, 7)

In the course of history, have Catholic clergy and leaders promoted peace among the nations? Has Catholic teaching served to resolve ethnic, racial, and tribal differences? The 1994 massacres in Rwanda*, east-central Africa, and the internecine wars in what was Yugoslavia all illustrate that religious beliefs generally fail to dissolve the deepest hatred and prejudices that lurk in the human heart. Neither a cursory weekly confession nor regular attendance at Mass is going to change the way people think and act. There has to be a much deeper influence, one that comes about only when the Word of God is allowed to penetrate the heart and the mind of the believer.

(*: According to religion writer Jonathan Dymond, the early Christians “refused to engage in [war]; whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death.” They chose to suffer rather than compromise their neutral stand. In contrast, regarding Christian neutrality, the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts: “Conscientious objection [the legal term for refusing military service] is morally indefensible.” An article in the Reformierte Presse states that a report by African Rights, a human rights organization, on the 1994 Rwandan genocide established the participation of all churches, “with the exception of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Catholic historian E. I. Watkin wrote: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. . . . Where belligerent nationalism is concerned they have spoken as the mouthpiece of Caesar.”

When Watkin said that bishops of the Catholic Church “supported all wars waged by the government of their country,” he included the wars of aggression waged by Hitler. As Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University, Friedrich Heer, admitted: “In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler.”

Catholic Church leaders gave such unqualified support to Hitler’s wars that the Roman Catholic professor Gordon Zahn wrote: “The German Catholic who looked to his religious superiors for spiritual guidance and direction regarding service in Hitler’s wars received virtually the same answers he would have received from the Nazi ruler himself.”

That Catholics obediently followed the direction of their church leaders was documented by Professor Heer. He noted: “Of about thirty-​two million German Catholics​—fifteen and a half million of whom were men—​only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians.” More recent evidence indicates that a few other Catholics, as well as some Protestants, stood up against the Nazi State because of religious convictions. Some even paid with their lives, while at the same time their spiritual leaders were selling out to the Third Reich. [Pardon the long footnote, it was short at first until I decided to add more.])

Christendom’s clergy have done just what the Jewish chief priests in the first century did when they rejected Christ. They have said, in effect, “We have no king but Caesar.”​—John 19:15. In her quest for peace and security, she insinuates herself into the favor of the political leaders of the nations​—this despite the Bible’s warning that friendship with the world is enmity with God. (James 4:4) Moreover, in 1919 she strongly advocated the League of Nations as man’s best hope for peace. Since 1945 she has put her hope in the United Nations. (Compare Revelation 17:3, 11.) How extensive is her involvement with this organization?

A book from the 90's gives an idea when it states: “No less than twenty-four Catholic organizations are represented at the UN. Several of the world’s religious leaders have visited the international organization. Most memorable were the visits of His Holiness Pope Paul VI during the General Assembly in 1965 and of Pope John Paul II in 1979. Many religions have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations. The most important examples are those of the Catholic, the Unitarian-Universalist, the Baptist and the Bahai faiths.”

To trust any man-made substitute for God’s Kingdom makes that substitute an image, an object of worship. (Revelation 13:14, 15) Thus, encouraging reliance on political institutions, such as the United Nations, for peace and security is an illusion, a lie. Concerning such objects of false hopes, Jeremiah says: “His molten image is a falsehood, and there is no spirit in them. They are vanity, a work of mockery. In the time of their being given attention they will perish.” (Jeremiah 10:14, 15)