So am I, and I see no reason to conclude that every nation is evil. Many Nations have obviously done much that is very good. Such as the USA.
America has been as good a bastion of freedom and democracy as has ever existed in this world. As far as personal freedoms go it is most likely the best country, or at very least one of the best, in the entire world.
No, America's record is not perfect. Their are stains, and black marks, as in the history of all nations, but also great records of courage, and freedom, and compassion, and mercy, and heroism.
and didn't many say Rome was a great Christian Empire?
Eh heh heh......
Well, Rome originally persecuted Christians, then Constantine outlawed that when he became a Christian, but even after that there are plenty of things they did that were nowhere near "Christian." For example, having people smash each other for entertainment.
I am too, and while I recognize there is evil and sin in the world, that doesn't make everything inherently evil.
My view of Government is that they all are bad, none are right on everything and all are non christian, and if its not Christian its of the Devil, I'm not saying fight it, were told to not do so.
Our government was founded on Christian principles, but it's definitely not Christian today. But anyway, just because no one's right on everything doesn't make them all evil. We're all human, and we all make mistakes, from terrorists and criminals to pastors and saints. And just because something's not Christian doesn't make it of the Devil, for example, there are plenty of wonderful charities that have been founded by non-Christian people. Also, you said we're told not to fight the government. I assume you're referring to Romans 13: 1-5, which... um, this might start to seem like a sermon, so I'll put it in Jammers...
{JAMMERS! -SERMON UP AHEAD} Romans 13: 1-5 says to obey authority because it has been instituted by God for our own good. However, if a government were really "of the Devil," it would not be necessary to obey. In Acts 5:29, Peter and the apostles said they would "obey God, not men." They are clearly saying that when men, even those in authority, command you to do something that disobeys God's law, they SHOULD be fought. Back to Romans. That passage says "those who resist will incur judgment." Do you think the Christians in China who have to smuggle Bibles because they're illegal will be judged by God for it? Certainly not! When a government truly and directly violates people's rights, it is okay to fight. In the U.S., you are allowed to fight against anything you feel is wrong or unconstitutional, and you should! Romans 13: 1-5 does not mean you have to go along with anything those in authority say. It just means they're there for a reason, and are part of God's plan, and as long as they're not doing anything against God's Word, they should be respected and obeyed.
1. The reason the US was in Afghanistan was because the USSR was in Afghanistan. The KGB are the ones that led all the shady assassinations and coups. And if you consider removing the Taliban from power a bad act (The only government overthrowing the US sponsored or participated in, as far as I know), then I'm honestly considering reporting you to the FBI.
2. Russia never moved bombs to Mexico but it did move missiles to Cuba. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just forgot about that bit of history.
3. Even if 100% of the Crimean population wanted to be part of Russia, that doesn't give Russia to invade land rightfully owned and maintained by the sovereign nation of Ukraine. If they want to be Russian citizens that bad, then they would logically just move to Russia, not have Russia move to them. Clearly it's all about asserting how cool Russia is. It has nothing to do with "Reuniting the Aryan people Russian people."
4. Again, Virginia is part of the US and Canada is not. It would, again, have no right to take it.
5. Trump's already planning for the 2020 election (If that's what you mean by "stay"). Also, what do you mean he doesn't have any power? The second he was inaugurated he got all the presidential power, and he's signed an insane amount of executive orders as well. Learn about the president before insulting him without proof, please and thank you.
I see you watch mainline media that don't tell the true story, I know About Cuba and they moved the bombs out and in exchange the Us moved their bombs in Turkey near Russia, Trump is already in trouble with the Intelligence bureaus, He can only do so much and he's been shunned by Government departments, his cabinet is falling to pieces, he won't get much done,
You failed to acknowledge points 1, 3, and 4, so I'll assume you're retreating.
1. No, I don't watch left biased media, right biased media, etc. I get my information mainly from history books and Wikipedia. Call any one of those biased but generally speaking I think I can recognize bias no matter what the source is.
2. He's not in trouble because he hasn't done anything. My hypothesis is that it's a ploy to make Trump appear weak when he really isn't. You'll notice that they keep moving the goalposts every time their claims get debunked, and it's been that way ever since Clinton wasn't found guilty of her crimes.
3. Admittedly I don't know much about the departments and their relations with him, so consider this a neutral response.
4. Again, the lies about his cabinet being in chaos are just to make the administration look weak and disorganized.
5. He's already gotten a lot done. In fact, he recently gave money to Flint (Remember that town? The one with the lead in the water supply? Yeah, nobody's reported on it in a while...) when Obama wouldn't do anything about it for two years. Also, the trouble with the travel ban orders was completely expected from everyone. Not really a setback for the administration, as we're only about (If my math is right; it very well could be wrong) 0.06% of the way through Trump's current term.
I am too, and while I recognize there is evil and sin in the world, that doesn't make everything inherently evil.
My view of Government is that they all are bad, none are right on everything and all are non christian, and if its not Christian its of the Devil, I'm not saying fight it, were told to not do so.
So you like theocracy? OK, here's some. Not that in every one of these countries, women have practically no rights and going against Islam (Including being gay or transgender; both of which are also against Christianity) is punishable by death:
-Poor -Victims of insurgency -Victims of war (May or may not be related to insurgency) -Dictatorships (In this context with a leader with no term limit or a leader who has ran past his term limit) -Victims of civil war, if not more than one -Victims of famine -Victims of drought
Also, there's no rule that says, "If it isn't holy it's demonic." If that's so then why is purgatory even mentioned as a concept?
There really are no true democracies. The U.S. is a republic. In a true democracy, every citizen would have to vote on every law. A true democracy is wonderful in theory, but it can't really be done. That's why we (in the U.S.) vote for people to vote on the laws for us, making it a republic. If there were a country small enough to have a true democracy, I don't think it would fail. But a republic means less people voting on laws, which significantly increases the chances of corruption.
I completely agree. Respresentational Democracy does not work in my opinion; I much prefer the idea of Direct Democracy. I live in the hope that one day, some one will work out a way to implement Direct Democracy across the globe.
I feel like a republic is actually the best form of government, because the person in power is an experienced person.
Why FDR, also I realized, actually Truman was opposed to the red scare, that was Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and Nixon mainly.
Because FDR was a hardline socialist who tried to illegally seize industries with quiet executive orders and put an entire race of US citizens in camps because of their ethnicity.
Truman was a hardline anti-communist who advocated actions against them that I don't even think were rational.
The concentration camps were a really bad thing, and while FDR did have a lot of cons, I feel like they were outweighed by his pros.
Because FDR was a hardline socialist who tried to illegally seize industries with quiet executive orders and put an entire race of US citizens in camps because of their ethnicity.
Truman was a hardline anti-communist who advocated actions against them that I don't even think were rational.
The concentration camps were a really bad thing, and while FDR did have a lot of cons, I feel like they were outweighed by his pros.
Not to support the internment of Japanese-Americans during the time, but the phrase "concentration camp" is generally reserved for describing the camps the Nazis built for the Jews, gays, gypsies, etc. because it implies an intent for genocide. Just wanted to point it out; I don't have a problem with you calling them either.
I completely agree. Respresentational Democracy does not work in my opinion; I much prefer the idea of Direct Democracy. I live in the hope that one day, some one will work out a way to implement Direct Democracy across the globe.
I feel like a republic is actually the best form of government, because the person in power is an experienced person.
That's not really what the point of a republic is. After all, Trump got elected and he has no previous political experience.
A republic is designed so that it is:
-More effective to vote (You elect people to vote for you as opposed to voting directly) -Harder to fix (Since one person doesn't equal one vote, you'd have to realistically go to the representative, and government officials in significant spots like that are generally less open to bribes) -Not decided by big pockets of people that generally have the same beliefs. New York and Los Angeles, both majority liberal, for example.
Still, I would agree that it is the best form of government for the above reasons. Direct democracies usually work effectively with no larger than maybe 1000 people.
