MATH

[Sky Blue Lou]

I think us Brits...

I think you Brits have a better system in some ways than we gridlocked 2-party grifting assholes with funding by corporation. Barring an hereditary monarchy of course. We really need a viable third party at least (if not more) so that coalition-style governing becomes more of a thing. We have a movement here called the Forward Party (Not Left, not Right - Forward.) that is gaining some traction so I am somewhat hopeful.

 

[JAPOV]

Both party leaders are so different to Trump and Biden, lacking the best of the US leaders, but having the worst of both.

I'm sincerely curious. What do the Brits think the best/worst is?

 

[TalismanRich]

........ We have two party leaders who everyone knows are lame ducks, nobody in the wings, and the leaders of the other parties nobody can remember their names. What a mess. It seems so weird to us that if you are a Trumpite, then Biden is unacceptable, and vice versa and there are about half each across the whole country so it's a toss up! With us, for the first time in my voting life of nearly 50 years, I can't give 'my' party my vote, but I can't vote for the other lot, so I waste my vote on the new smaller party of sensible people who joined from both sides. It's first time ever territory here.

What makes you think that many American's aren't in exactly the same position. The extremes on either side are screaming loud and long, and there are a ton of us in the middle who are rolling our eyes and wondering how much longer this crap can go on.

The day of the statesman is gone. It's a 30 second soundbite/Instagram world where the ability to get a reaction is more important than content. As you noticed, there is no more "we", it's just "us" and "them".

 

[grimtraveller]

I think us Brits enjoy American politics so much because your system works so differently

I like politics in general. Haiti, Gaza, Syria, America, Nigeria, Afghanistan, India, Gabon.....there's really nowhere like the UK. Thankfully.
You don't want our chaos masquerading as great world-leading organization. The UK voting and political structure is like free jazz !!

at the moment, the talk is when our current Prime Minister decides to call an election

He has to call it by December. What will be interesting will be when he decides to call it and why. His party is falling apart, he has many enemies {I was telling my wife this was the case, even when Liz Truss was slapping his arse back in '22} and the Labour party, as soon as his first crisis {Suella Braverman being reinstated as home secretary after being "moved aside" in the role by Lizzy T in one of her few good moves due a security breach} has been pushing the narrative that he is weak....which I don't think he is. I think he is trying to be fair.....but that is interpreted as weak in the present climate. Which is stupid in my opinion. It's at times like this that there is definitely a place for the religious and the spiritual in politics. Do to others as you wish them to do to you. He has given a number of his erring ministers the chance to turn things around but some of them have been so "up their own backsides" as we say, in the vernacular, that they haven't been willing to play ball. Well, let me say, if I was erring in life, with my wife, with my kids, with my work, with speeding while I drive, I'd be grateful for the chance to put things right and move on - unless I was arrogant and pig-headed. It seems that those involved with politics {journalists, politicians, especially the opposition, many voters and even party colleagues} are not interested in human realities and hold its practitioners to a far higher and more unrealistic standard than God ever has.
Sometimes, for good reason. Often, not.

members of his party are jumping ship so quickly he wont have many left soon

I get what you mean. I have been surprised at how many have jumped ship since 2019. But you know, in every parliamentary cycle, it's surprising how many MPs decide not to run for re-election or drop out. Check the numbers. Deaths, bad behaviour, "I've had enough and my family is suffering..." - there are so many different reasons. So it's actually no big deal. It shouldn't be forgotten that the Tories had a majority of 80 in the last election. That's no small potatoes,
I remember back in 2015, my younger son's school really got into the elections and he was 10 and really looked hard at the parties' manifestos. He told me that having weighed them all up, he thought the Labour one was the fairest and best. I was quite impressed. I would have been, even if he'd gone with a party I could never vote for. On the Friday when the results came out and the Tories upset the bookies' odds {they thought we'd get a hung parliament} by getting a majority of 10, my son asked me what it meant. When I explained, he turned to me and said words I've never forgotten. He said, "So does that mean the winning party can do whatever it likes ?"
I replied "Yeah, pretty much."
The Tories had an 80 majority in 2019. With that, they could easily have turned Britain into a Tory-soaked paradise. Whatever that would mean in their estimation. But instead, they simply demonstrated the old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely. A relatively small number have been stupid and cocky and arrogant, including big Boris and Lettuce Liz and I hope they will pay the price.
When Tony Blair's govt was in power, right from the start they proved to be no better than the sleazy Tories they had ousted, emphasizing their sleaziness. Political party shenanigans merely reflects a human problem which is why putting your faith in politics and politicians and parties is one rung below insanity in my opinion.

The trouble is they're jumping ship to a party who statistically can't win, so the Conservatives are out without any doubt

That is what was reported widely in 1992...but the Conservatives got in for 5 more years.
They said the same in 2015 about the hung parliament ~ but the Tories won.

Trouble is, the opposition are so used to being in opposition, theyre not ready to govern. Their only policies are disagreeing with the conservatives, so if they win, they'll walk into power totally clueless

To me, that's like saying that a person who is single before getting married or jobless before getting their first job is a poor bet because of that.
No Robert {Robson, Robin} !
Life is an accumulative experience in which we learn as we go along, both as people that observe age-old practices and as people with new ideas that must be tested.
One other thing that so many people seem to ignore ~ as an opposition politician, you get first-hand, up-close experience watching your opposite number. You get to learn from their errors and successes. You get to see how one can support or defy your own government. Tony Blair had no govt experience whatsoever. He was PM for 10 or so years......the Tories have spent much of their time in power trying to undo or come to terms with what he inspired.

and probably carry on many policies because they don't have any of their own

To say they have none of their own is ridiculous. But it is an accurate observation to say they will have to carry on the policies of the gang that were in before them. Not everything is a bitter fight to the death ! There's a lot of agreement between all parties. It seems they would all rather keep the illusion that the choice of one means certain death and destruction.
Well, it hasn't thus far. I had a great time under the Tories up till '97. I had a great time under Labour till 2010. I had a great time under the Con-Dem alliance till 2015. Because I take responsibility for my life, my direction, my thoughts, my family. The day I truly die is when I look to a political party in the UK to provide anything for me.

 

[grimtraveller]

Both party leaders are so different to Trump and Biden

Yeah, they are half their age and are compos-mentis !
I thought it was a dire scenario in 2016 with the Don and Hilary show. But while 2020, I can slightly give a pass, 2024 is that point at which I think it is time to take stock and, well, let's just say that it is time to stringently assess where we're all at. I would never say that older people should be put out to pasture, but whenever I see Joe Biden, I shiver. It's not even because of his stupid phrase about "Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black” which is one of the most insulting things anyone White could say to anyone Black in the 21st century or ever; it's simply that as good or as crap as he is, can the security of the country and the world reliably be left in his hands ? I know he has tons of advisors and nothing is as simple as to be only his decision, but he so often appears to be exactly what someone of his age is. That's not a problem....except when the weight of the world is literally on your shoulders.
And Donald Trump, give me strength. I come purely and strictly from the point of view of a Christian, which he purports to be. He is either an extremely immature follower of Christ, in which case, he should {like I said to my son back in 2020 or 21 about Kanye West} shut his mouth, learn to love Christ {and by extension, his enemies and all people}, follow Christ and work out for himself what it really means to be a Christian in a world that isn't. Or he is not a Christian at all {which I suspect}. But so many American Christians are way more 'American' than 'Christian' {and I'd say the same for many British Christians, Black Christians, Asian Christians etc} and seem to leap in orgasmic delight at anyone that seems to stand against anything that appears to be 'Godless', even if it's fair. I've been watching my Christian brothers and sisters in the States since Ronnie Reagan making the same error again and again and again. There's an old saying "There's none so blind as those that cannot see."
But even Donald, whom I thought up until last year looked spritely and mentally sharp, has been getting older and slipping. The Bible that he has been recently advertising is so laughable as to be not in the slightest bit funny. Only the hyenas are laughing {and I think they're just hungry}. To be touting a King James Bible in 2024 is rather like touting the virtues of frying chips every day in lard and dripping or having a bath in a bath tin in front of a coal fire once a week. And proclaiming that women shouldn't have the vote. It's as noteworthy as Black Sabbath's 1975 lyric "I'm going backwards ~ but I'm in control....feel it slipping away !?"
But that's just the surface folly. To go deeply into detail of the sheer idiocy of such a move would be outside the remit of this thread.

lacking the best of the US leaders, but having the worst of both

What do I like about Don ? He's sassy. He has got back up after bankruptcy {ie, failure} a number of times, showing he has spunk. He pays no 'nevermind' to the prevailing mores of the political world he inhabits. But that doesn't make him a good leader.
What do I like about Joe ? He's dedicated much of his life to the service of the American people even though a lot of them haven't liked him. And he's overcome internal family tragedy and current{ish} personal shit with his kids. No easy thing when you're viewed as "the most powerful man in the world" {I don't think in those terms but many do}.
A number of people on these pages back in 2020 and 21 were adamant he'd hand over to Kamala part way into his term as Prez, as part of some big "Dem" conspiracy.
He hasn't.
I wouldn't compare the party leaders here with the American ones because we're so much more understated {which is not necessarily better or worse}. And it takes a while for what is said to sink in. Mind you, there are many here that would rather have an American-style system. To quote Johnny Lennon, a guy who wrote a song called Strawberry Fields Forever, "It doesn't matter much to me...."

We're in a real mess

'Twas ever thus.
When you have a situation where 39% of the voting population gets to impose their voting preference on the 61% across 4 countries, well, you could argue that 'mess' is in-built into the system.
Then again, we had a referendum vote in 2011 as to whether or not the population wanted to change to a proportional representation system {I think I voted 'yes' but I honestly can't remember !} and it was a resounding 'yay' to keeping it as it was. So them's the rules.
I may not like the rules, but I play by them and don't complain if I lose.
Unless Vladimir sets them !!

They're talking about the next election being the worst turnout in history, because the two leaders of the big parties are clueless

They're not really clueless. They're only clueless to their detractors and to those who, frankly, are too pig-shit

ignorant to listen to what both have to say.
Bias isn't a bad thing in and of itself. But it can mean that one misses out on some good stuff that can make one well-rounded.
Incidentally, we've rarely had huge voter turnouts in recent elections in the UK, well, England specifically. Compare the last election with Scotland's turnout for the independence referendum in 2014 {yes I know 16-year-olds were given the vote}.

 

[grimtraveller]

The US system where both parties shout loud and clear is alien to us

You think ?
I guess it depends on the degree to which one follows the political battlefield. When Tony Blair was PM, I remember {this would be '99 or 2000} saying to my mate {he played drums and percussion on my songs} that Labour had cleverly hijacked a lot of Conservative ground, which made it hard for the Tories to appear relevant again. But then, after a decade of undermining Blair, private briefing and leaks, in 2007 Gordon Brown became PM, steered Labour back in a more overtly "in yer face" socialist direction....lost the election and Labour floundered until Keir Starmer.
But really, there has long been a situation where both parties shout loud and there have been significant differences between the two. There still are.
But it should also be emphasized that there are many areas where the two {and indeed the LibDems} are on the same ground and work together. It's not England vs Germany in 1940, you know.

We have two party leaders who everyone knows are lame ducks

See, I disagree with you there. I'm no fan of the Tories and would have an almost allergic reaction if, in a general election I went to put a cross next to the Conservative candidate. But RishiRishiRishi {the sound of a metal scourer washing metal pots, in case you're curious} isn't a lame duck. I'd like to slap him sometimes, but I think that under the circumstances, he's actually not done a bad job. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say he's done a great job, but he's been no worse than any of the PMs going back to Gordon Brown.
As for Keir Starmer, he's in the same situation that Tony Blair and David Cameron found themselves in. Ministers that hadn't served in gov but found themselves as PM made way more significant history than those with considerable govt experience. The changes they wrought had far greater reach and affect us to this day.

nobody in the wings

Had you heard of Rishi Sunak prior to Sajid Javid's resignation ? I hadn't. When he became chancellor, I thought "Who the heck is this guy whose trouser legs are too damned short ?"
When David Cameron became party leader back in 2005 or whenever, I hadn't heard of him. I'd never heard of William Hague in '97. I'd barely heard of Ed Milliband {I wrote a song about him called "Ed Billabong"}. I'd heard of David though. I knew about Jeremy Corbin because he was my MP when I lived for 11 years in Islington and he fought to get my little brother a university grant. But I thought it was ridiculous when he became the Labour leader. I'd barely heard of Keir Starmer.
And I have followed politics only a few years less than I have followed football. In fact, I have long found it to be more entertaining.
The thing is, there's always someone in the wings. Who would have thought that James Callaghan or John Major would serve 10 years between them as PM {both longer than Boris !}.

and the leaders of the other parties nobody can remember their names

Sir Ed Davey. Richard Tice. Carla and Adrian of the Greens......

It seems so weird to us that if you are a Trumpite, then Biden is unacceptable, and vice versa

Not in the slightest particular. There was clear water between Margeret Thatcher and Michael Foot in 1983. Would you have been happy with Footie in '83 ? Or Neil Kinnock in '87 and '92 ?
Now, that may have a certain modicum of truth in the Tony Blair years because Blair wasn't really that unacceptable to Tories in 2001 and 2005. But once we got to Gordon Brown and David Cameron in 2010, the gloves were off again.
Whether it was the 70s, the 80s, the 90s or post-2010, it has been just as partisan here. What has really changed is the way in which we are 24/7 bombarded. Look at old newspapers from times past Rob. You may discover that very little has changed except that back then, there was no social media and the democratization {and subsequent perceived legitimacy} of everyone's opinion. In the 80s no one cared about your opinion except your mates. Now, it doesn't matter what your mates think. There are thousands, if not closer to a million all over the world that will agree with you, so long as you claim to bat for the same outfit.

for the first time in my voting life of nearly 50 years, I can't give 'my' party my vote, but I can't vote for the other lot

There have been more people in a similar position to this than you are aware. Speaking personally, I'm not a politically Labour supporter but for the last 4 elections, I've voted Labour. Why ?
Because our system is bloody weird. Some people vote for a party. Some people vote for a Prime Minister. And some people vote for an MP. Some vote for all 3. Some for varying combinations. I voted in 2010 for Labour because I had no compelling reason to vote the govt out. I nearly didn't vote. In 2015 I voted for Labour because I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Conservatives in Brent North. In '17 and '19 I voted Labour because I had personal experience of the candidate, Barry Gardiner, and I knew first-hand that he had a heart for the people. Had I still lived in West Hendon, I may well have voted for the Labour candidate, Andrew Dismore, because my mate who drummed on loads of my songs worked for him and I knew how hard the guy worked for his constituents.
On the other hand, had I lived where the Tory candidate John Taylor was running, I might have voted for him {and, gasp, the dreaded Tories} because I know from my sister that he was genuinely interested in kids and their education.
But every so often, there is the quandry that you describe. Unlike you, I don't have a party or natural preference. I've voted Labour, Liberal Democrat and even for the Christian Alliance in mayoral elections. I didn't mind when Red Ken Livingstone was mayor even though I didn't vote for him, because I know he was for the people, even though I personally didn't agree with many of his views. I didn't mind when Boris was mayor even though I would never have voted for him, because he was an entertaining character. I liked Susan Kramer of the LibDems when she ran and it was a shame she didn't get elected. Sadiq Khan drives me up the wall. He reminds me of that kid that would get beaten up at school every day except that he'd been best mates with the toughest guy in high school when they were at nursery. So he had protection by proxy !

so I waste my vote on the new smaller party of sensible people who joined from both sides

They went under a long time ago. Remember Chuka Ummunna and Anna Soubery ? Sensible people with good things to say, but ultimately, always on the fringes. The mainstream had over 100 years of weight and allegiance behind them. Fledglings from any of the big guns coming together are always on a loser.

 

[grimtraveller]

The world is drowning in bullshit government overreach... you're describing the smell with even more convoluted syntax

Could you put that into language a simpleton like me can understand ?

Why do you think America is so successful?

You do realize that God has nothing but contempt and impending judgment for those that are succesful but that do not take care of or truly express love for those in need ?

What do you think makes the American Constitution so unique?

One of the things that makes the American constitution {well, parts of it and at least, when it was originally set in place} so unique is the recognition by some of its architects that humanity is a potential screw-up and not so wonderfully altruistic as to suppose that we all, always put our best foot forward, even in government.

Why do you think America set the precedence for ending slavery world wide?

A lot of America didn't.
But I give credit where credit is due. The ending of America's involvement in the slave trade was one of history's notable events and I'm not about to smear that or throw donkey urine all over it.
But things didn't become wonderful {and equal} for America's Black population in the 1860s. Or its Native population.
In some places, they still aren't, regardless of the legalities.

1. You shall have no other gods before God.
2. You shall not make or worship graven images.
3. You shall not take God’s name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet

Even if you believe in a 6000-year-old earth, before that law was given, you can calculate around 2500 years {a bit more, in fact} from creation and Adam. One doesn't have to be wonderfully observant to note that God did not give that law to any of the nations that are ever mentioned up to that point. Neither did He give that law to any of the nations mentioned after Exodus. Those laws, along with the 603 other laws during the Israelites' desert phase were given to Israel and Israel only.
That is significant.
It's significant for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here. But one of the reasons it is significant is that nowhere in the entirety of scripture {and yes, I have read the entire Bible many, many times starting in 1985} does God ever state that any other other nation is to follow that law. Israel was God's chosen set of people, chosen to be " a light to the Gentiles", in other words, a people who were tasked with showing the rest of the planet what God was like, how he operated, what He wanted. Other than the first four, most countries generally aspire to the laws anyway. Paul wrote about those not having the law but keeping it being a law to themselves. It was never a law intended to be imposed on the rest of the world, through all eras, come what may. It certainly wasn't something that people who didn't believe in it or the God that inspired it could keep. God doesn't impose. The interesting thing about Israel is that they actually agreed to follow the law when it was given.....and then by their behaviour, actually did the opposite. Moses even said to them after 40 years of desert shenanigans to choose who they were going to serve. They elected to go with God.
No doubt, every one of the principles and the spirit behind them is good and for some of us, necessary.
But that's got nothing to do with America as a nation.
America isn't Israel thousands of years ago in the desert or in what was formerly Canaan. White America ironically ran away from Europe, in part because of religious persecution. And simply repeated the very thing that people from various European nations ran away from.
That is partly why there was often a call for separation of church and state.
When Jesus was around, he didn't try to overthrow the Romans. In fact, as you said earlier, he recognized the boundaries {Give to Caesar what is Caesar's} because he knew that fighting fire with fire was a pointless exercise. You fight fire with water and that's what he was about. So he said and lived things like love God with everything you got, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, if you want to show how great a leader you are then serve everyone else, etc, etc ~ the very thing few Christians {yes, in the USA but not only there} actually do. American Christians have not learned the lesson that Britain failed to learn before it ~ political power and the imposition of minority Christian ways on a vast swathe of a population that do not believe in or follow your ways is a road to nowhere and does not further what God wants to do.
The almighty God of the universe is not a Republican or a Trump voter, even though there are some good things about the Republican party overall.

Seriously? You question the very foundation of law?

No. I refute imposing the Bible on people that aren't in the slightest bit interested in what it says, even if it one day turns out to be to their loss.

You mean like the muslims who are all raised to be martyrs?

I have no interest in anyone of any persuasion raised to be a martyr. That's got nothing to do with the points I made.

America is easily identifiable by the example it sets!

Sure. Some of the people of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Grenada, Iraq, Japan, Grenada and quite a bit of Central America can school you in a whole lotta lessonage about America's example. You know who else has learned lessons about America's example ? Russia. China. North Korea. Syria. Saudi Arabia. Among others.
American adventures in Iraq {the 2nd one} alone were like a Monopoly board to Vladimir Putin when he considered Crimea and recently, Ukraine. And he knew no one could do anything. Britain showed the relatively modern world {they weren't the only ones, but they had a sizeable empire} that if you have the firepower, any country that doesn't is up for the taking. America fell at a hurdle or two but learned and Russia saw them in the early 21st century and said "Cool beans !!"

Why do you think everyone wants to live here!?

Many people with a modicum of sense want to live in a place that's not like theirs if their own place treats them like cat faeces. Besides, the USA, like Britain is English-speaking and da English is the lingua franca of the world. Where does anyone speak Italian or Swedish ? Or even Russian ?
One other thing. A place where you can at least move forward, have a roof over your head and eat even semi-decent food, even if many there initially hate you and make you unwelcome, is still better than a place where most people love you but you're sleeping in and eating from the gutter each night. If you're lucky.

 

[grimtraveller]

The day of the statesman is gone

Mind you, when one hears tales of some of the statesmen of yesteryear, that may not be such a bad thing.

 

[JAPOV]

Tens of thousands protesting in Israel / Zero anti-hamas protests in Gaza

And the entire world seems to detest Netanyahu...

 

[leddy]

Tens of thousands protesting in Israel / Zero anti-hamas protests in Gaza

Hamas does not allow them to.

Thousands take to streets in Gaza in rare public display of discontent with Hamas

Several thousand people briefly took to the streets across the Gaza Strip to protest the territory’s chronic power outages and difficult living conditions.

apnews.com

And the entire world seems to detest Netanyahu...

Do you support him?

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

Hamas does not allow them to.

That's a big "no shit" there, eh? There are quite a few Arab or Palestinian folks living as citizens and voting in Israel. How many Israelis in Gaza - live ones?

 

[JAPOV]

Could you put that into language a simpleton like me can understand ?

No need...
Read your Bible again.

 

[Serendipity Records]

You do realize that God has nothing but contempt and impending judgment for those that are succesful but that do not take care of or truly express love for those in need ?

The State can't merit heaven, so I expect we can agree that it is not responsible for charity?

Neither did He give that law to any of the nations mentioned after Exodus. Those laws, along with the 603 other laws during the Israelites' desert phase were given to Israel and Israel only.

Still, Jesus lived as a Jew -- aka following the law of Moses. The laws you mention later were only added upon -- an additional command, "a New Commandment I give to you", meant to complete the 10 Commandments of the covenant of Moses, not replace them. Christianity is the New Israel, a holy nation not built on politico-ethnic principles but welcoming to those who accept its frankly simple demands.

The almighty God of the universe is not a Republican or a Trump voter, even though there are some good things about the Republican party overall.

Totally agreed.

Sure. Some of the people of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Grenada, Iraq, Japan, Grenada and quite a bit of Central America can school you in a whole lotta lessonage about America's example. You know who else has learned lessons about America's example ? Russia. China. North Korea. Syria. Saudi Arabia. Among others.

America did a first when it didn't take over all of Europe after WWII, but helped rebuild those nations instead. Give us that at least!

 

[grimtraveller]

No need...
Read your Bible again.

There is a need. If I ask you to please clarify what you've said because I don't have a clue what you mean, the least you could do is comply.
I don't mind wisecracks, they're actually quite a skill. But if something goes over one's head and they ask for some assistance there, it's a poor show to say no.

The State can't merit heaven, so I expect we can agree that it is not responsible for charity?

Yes, but that isn't what I meant.
The fact that a particular nation may be "successful" in the sight of a human being really doesn't mean anything to God. South Africa during apartheid was successful. Britain during its empire days was successful. Russia during its huge communist expansion was successful. Spain and Rome were successful. And millions of people died or suffered greatly on the receiving end of that 'success'.

Still, Jesus lived as a Jew -- aka following the law of Moses

Sure. But what has that to do with other nations ?

The laws you mention later were only added upon.....meant to complete the 10 Commandments of the covenant of Moses, not replace them

I didn't say the other 603 were a replacement. Although, lots of those laws were thrown out by Jesus and the Holy Spirit {Acts 15} and do not, and never have applied to the Church outside Israel.

a holy nation not built on politico-ethnic principles

That was the heart of my point.
No disrespect, but to an outsider, many American Christians over the decades have not given that impression. Rather like many of the English before them. You know, we get news items here from time to time where some people in the USA equate being a Christian with being a Republican and an American. Earlier, you said that the notion of "Christian Nationalism" was a falsehood or something peddled by the left. Brother man, that is not true.

but welcoming to those who accept its frankly simple demands

Not only the few that accept its standards, but even to those that don't. The one thing no follower of Christ can escape is the reality of these words: "Love your enemies. Pray for those that spitefully use/treat you."

America did a first when it didn't take over all of Europe after WWII

Actually, it couldn't have.
But the following decade and until the Beatles came along, it took over in a far more powerful and far-reaching way !

but helped rebuild those nations instead. Give us that at least!

Actually, I'm largely critical of the way America, Britain, France and Russia together carved up Europe after WWII. I accept there was a certain necessity in dismantling Germany but like Versailles after WWI, it had consequences that were foreseeable, far-reaching and damaging. The cold war is, for me a great irony of history.

 

[Serendipity Records]

Yes, but that isn't what I meant.
The fact that a particular nation may be "successful" in the sight of a human being really doesn't mean anything to God. South Africa during apartheid was successful. Britain during its empire days was successful. Russia during its huge communist expansion was successful. Spain and Rome were successful. And millions of people died or suffered greatly on the receiving end of that 'success'.

Earlier (maybe in a different thread?) you said that you don't believe that nations should be built on religion-based principle. I didn't bother to find the exact quote -- but it seems to me quite strange for a Christian to say. BTW my brain is quite muddled right now as it is quite late here, but it might more convincingly be argued that nations should base their laws on principles that can be infallibly be reasoned to (and hence coincide with Judeo-Christian principles)? Those nations being "successful" but grossly overstepping obvious moral discrepancies only happened when they began to stifle dissent and commit other belligerent actions some of which you mention.

Sure. But what has that to do with other nations ?

Well, you don't have to explicitly read in the Bible that other nations should follow the law of Moses to know that we are bound to it through imitating Christ?

I didn't say the other 603 were a replacement. Although, lots of those laws were thrown out by Jesus and the Holy Spirit {Acts 15} and do not, and never have applied to the Church outside Israel.

Even though they were given to Moses, they were not part of a specific Covenant like the 10 Commandments were. Besides, "thrown out" is somewhat harsh terminology -- circumcision was just no longer the "common denominator".

No disrespect, but to an outsider, many American Christians over the decades have not given that impression. Rather like many of the English before them. You know, we get news items here from time to time where some people in the USA equate being a Christian with being a Republican and an American.

I agree. I'm not a registered Republican.

Earlier, you said that the notion of "Christian Nationalism" was a falsehood or something peddled by the left. Brother man, that is not true.

Sorry, I am 99% certain there is a misunderstanding here -- please point me to my exact words and I will happily clarify.

Not only the few that accept its standards, but even to those that don't. The one thing no follower of Christ can escape is the reality of these words: "Love your enemies. Pray for those that spitefully use/treat you."

Not sure how that works? If you don't accept the fact that you are a sinner, you aren't forgiven. You mention Acts -- there's plenty of proof there! Not to mention the episode of the sinful woman who escaped stoning. Did Jesus just say, "Love you anyway"? I'm sure you know his real answer.

Actually, it couldn't have.

Oh yes they could have. At least West Germany could have been a new American puppet state, the way that East Germany was to the USSR.

But the following decade and until the Beatles came along, it took over in a far more powerful and far-reaching way !

I thought that was called the British Invasion... lol
If you're referring to the sexual revolution well the bikini was invented in France rofl

Actually, I'm largely critical of the way America, Britain, France and Russia together carved up Europe after WWII. I accept there was a certain necessity in dismantling Germany but like Versailles after WWI, it had consequences that were foreseeable, far-reaching and damaging. The cold war is, for me a great irony of history.

Versailles was a huge mistake, and the brainchild of what is called American Messianism as proclaimed by Wilson. I would postulate it had a greater effect than the post-WWII map because it directly contributed to the rise of totalitarian states such as seen in WWII.

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

Versailles was a huge mistake, and the brainchild of what is called American Messianism as proclaimed by Wilson. I would postulate it had a greater effect than the post-WWII map because it directly contributed to the rise of totalitarian states such as seen in WWII.

I was taught that the excessive nature of reparations instituted by Versailles were Franco-British vengeance and America just went along with it. I was educated in America of course so maybe a deliberately slanted view?

You gents' Bible knowledge is impressive but way beyond anything I am going to comment on. Not my cup of tea.

 

[dogooder]

As you noticed, there is no more "we", it's just "us" and "them".

I blame that on Pink Floyd.

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

I blame that on Pink Floyd.

Ahh the infamous Floyd Tribe. But were they cause or comment? Such are the questions of these difficult times.

 

[grimtraveller]

Earlier you said that you don't believe that nations should be built on religion-based principle...it seems to me quite strange for a Christian to say

Perhaps. But I do say it. I say it because as a keen observer and student of history, particularly American, British and European history, it is not lost on me just how much negativity has been associated with so many countries and how much of that negativity is directly correlated to either the Church or Christianity. And this is before we get to the African nations and their adoption of "the Bible" and their interpretation of religion in their lawmaking.
This is a hard thing to do but I refuse to shy away from the hard truths about any group I happen to be part of. I can see all too clearly how, for example, Black people in the UK and the USA have been trampled on and treated like shit much of the time over the last 3-400 years. But I also see just as clearly where we have erred, made excuses and not done ourselves any favours and in many instances been the authors of our own misfortunes.
As a Christian, I can say and see that the Church has done many wonderful things. Much of which the wider society hasn't acknowledged, is largely ignorant of or plain doesn't care {for whatever reason - and there are a number of reasons}. But equally, countries that at some point based their laws on what certain of their number found in the Bible haven't exactly covered themselves in glory....or humility. JAPOV makes a point of telling me how America set the precedent for ending slavery. Yeah, after having been initmately involved in it for how many hundred years ? I'll always give credit where credit is due. Abolition was a great thing and there are those that played an important part. But as a Christian, I can't pretend that both the Bible and Christianity weren't used to prop up slavery for all of that time. That's just one example. There are many others. There's a reason why there's a necessary separation between Church and state. Europe's medieval history is an embarrassment {I'm being polite here !} when it comes to Church, Christianity and law.
Humanity does have an inclination towards sin and it is easy for us to be at odds with God. But you may uncomfortably find that, at least in countries that have large numbers of Christians, especially in, influencing or close to power of whatever shape or form, one of the biggest turn-offs for those that reject Christ .
has been and continues to be some {many ?} of those Christians.

it might more convincingly be argued that nations should base their laws on principles that can be infallibly be reasoned to (and hence coincide with Judeo-Christian principles)?

In one of his speeches, Peter made the point that even the people of Israel couldn't keep God's laws. And they didn't deny they were under those laws. It was a given for them.
In Islamic countries such as Iran, there is no distinction between the religious laws and the governmental ones. They are one and the same. I doubt very strongly that God actually delights in that and I doubt he particularly delights in any form of man's government ~ even those that are supposed to mirror what he has revealed to humanity. The thing with God's laws is that the one necessary ingredient in them working is the desire of the people following them to want to follow them.

Those nations being "successful" but grossly overstepping obvious moral discrepancies only happened when they began to stifle dissent and commit other belligerent actions some of which you mention

Debateable.

Well, you don't have to explicitly read in the Bible that other nations should follow the law of Moses to know that we are bound to it through imitating Christ?

One of the fascinating aspects of the NT is that there are no words written about the laws of nations and how nations should behave or formulate their laws that are binding on any country. God created human beings to exercise freedom ~ for better or worse. Different countries have their laws. There are aspects of the law of Moses that are completely outdated. There are others that remain as principles and others still that as individual Christians {and by extension, as communities of Christians} should be kept, if only as guidelines. Because even across the Bible narratives, we see laws change and changing.
Jesus and the law is such a vast topic, one which I'm glad to explore privately. Privately because it'd just bore the pants off contributors here, unless everyone or those in the conversation are happy to run with it. Suffice it to say, many Christians, especially in America, seek to impose their interpretation of what they think God's law is on the entire population even though the majority of that population clearly are not Christians. Now, even God doesn't do that. The one time he put together a nation from the start with laws {which, incidentally, the nation agreed to}, headache and heartache were often the primary result. For him.

Even though they were given to Moses, they were not part of a specific Covenant like the 10 Commandments were

I don't agree with that. If you go through the entire law {and I have, many times. The first church I was part of erroneously stuck to it like limpet mines on the hull of a ship} most of it is specific to Israel and part of their standing as God's people and as such, part of the covenant. Not having sex with your Dad's sister {or, for that matter, your own} was as binding and relevant as not taking the Lord's name in vain {incidentally, that is less an issue concerned with verbals as it is about behaviour as a representative of God}. I use that just as an example. The laws about sacrifices and the priesthood and a wife grabbing the balls of a man fighting her husband were as much part of the covenant as any in the "big 10."

Besides, "thrown out" is somewhat harsh terminology -- circumcision was just no longer the "common denominator"

"Thrown out," "Rescinded," "No longer applicable," "Ended," take your pick. The point is that in this period of great transition, lots of Jewish followers of Christ sometimes went with the law and sometimes didn't. Remember how Paul got up in Peter's face when Pete started shrinking again under pressure from the guys from Jerusalem who said that the Gentiles had to be circumcised and follow Moses' law ~ Paul told him that he didn't even live like a Jew with his freedom in Christ. Interesting.....And when that major council happened in Acts 15, they reduced the Gentile requirement to just 4 things.

 

[grimtraveller]

Sorry, I am 99% certain there is a misunderstanding here -- please point me to my exact words and I will happily clarify

You earlier said:

"Christian Nationalism" is just another leftist hate label which aims to discredit the role of Christianity in the shaping of our country

That's not really true. Christian Nationalism has, in some shape or form, been around and active ever since Europeans first landed on the shores of the land we call America. It obviously hasn't always applied to every person and it has always had divergencies within it and has been much stronger at times than others. I first noticed it in the 80s with Ronald Reagan. I noticed it during the first Gulf war with big George Bush and big time with the second George Bush and since "the Don" it has flowed as a raging river. And I'm just an irrelevant Black Englishman. But I noticed it when I was atheist and subsequent to that.
In point of fact, many on the left are only too happy to "credit" Christianity with the shaping of America ~ and they'll happily throw in slavery, the decimation {culturally or otherwise} of the Native American population, the keeping down of women {when was it that they got the vote, 1919, 1920 ?}, all of the "in yer face" racist laws and all that came with it, segregation, supposed church support of some of the most inhuman shit to come down against God's crown of creation.......oh no, many on the left will happily use that stuff and more {abortion, age of consent, homosexuality laws etc} to demonstrate the Christian shaping of the nation.....and precisely why the nation needs to get away from such.

Not sure how that works? If you don't accept the fact that you are a sinner, you aren't forgiven

When you said

Christianity is the New Israel, a holy nation not built on politico-ethnic principles but welcoming to those who accept its frankly simple demands

who were you speaking of when you referred to "those who accept its frankly simple demands." ?
I may have misunderstood you or we may have found ourselves at cross purposes. We seemed to jump somewhere from how natives of a country that are Christians ought to be treating those that turn up in the country they live in.

Oh yes they could have. At least West Germany could have been a new American puppet state, the way that East Germany was to the USSR

Having just spent all those years fighting to stop Hitler from doing something akin to that, I don't think the European nations on the western side would have allowed that. But also, it wasn't really America's style in those days. Plus, it enabled them to occupy the moral high ground when the USSR started wiggling their bums in the direction of East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania....

I thought that was called the British Invasion

Well, that came in the 60s.
Really, the UK had a terrible inferiority complex about America until the Beatles hit no.1 in early 1964 then a few other groups followed in their wake. Everything about the USA was perceived to be so much more exciting and had so much more oomph.

If you're referring to the sexual revolution

I wasn't !

I would postulate it had a greater effect than the post-WWII map because it directly contributed to the rise of totalitarian states such as seen in WWII

This one is kind of nuanced, only because between Versailles and WWII there were only 20 years, whereas since the end of WWII there have been close to 79 and American culture in all its splendour has had the opportunity to mount a takeover that has affected far more of the world than countries like Russia who have tried to do so by force. But that wasn't America's intention in 1945.