Jump to content

Photo

What He Said


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
677
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 15 July 2014 - 08:19 AM

    "I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

Jefferson was arguing that no generation has the moral or legal authority to bind the next.  Of course were the people of our nation to take upon themselves Jefferson's view that would mean indicting and imprisoning the entirety of the Federal Reserve, Treasury, the Executive and Congress -- right here and now -- for Racketeering and Grand Theft.

And of course it would also mean that the citizenry would have to take a long hard look at themselves.  Why were they voting for these people whom they must have known were liars, because way down deep inside, they know that nothing in this world comes without a cost . . . . no free lunches.  Why did they ask the government to do all the things they could not or were not willing to pay for.  What does it say about the honesty and integrity of the citizenry of the nation.  Oh, and lest we forget, you and I are part of the citizenry. 

 

I thought I just might add that last little bit because you all know how I love ruffling feathers.  Ruffle, ruffle, ruffle, ruffle. . . . . :popcorn:

 

God bless,

Larry

 

 



#2 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,032 posts
5,482
Excellent

Posted 15 July 2014 - 08:38 AM

The Great Depression opened the door to much of this. During that time of crisis many looked to the government to help them and get their lives back in order. To an extent that's understandable, especially considering even then many folks refused to look for government help and simply did what was necessary to survive even if that surviving was at a very low standard for months or years.

 

Then, as is typical of government, once they had their nose in they were determined to not only keep it in, but to climb on in and take over. Little by little people got used to government assistance and little by little they added more and then others would become jealous and want something from the government so the government obliged. What better way to help destroy family unity, church/community relations and such.

 

Now, whether on the so-called Left of Right, there are voters who get some form of government goodies at the expense of tax payers. They may decry some of what others get but they will fight tooth and nail to protect their own and work hard to gain more.

 

With corporations, farmers, and citizens from virtually every economic level receiving some form of government special goodie, all of which encompasses over half the population, we are not going to see a voting bloc come forth to vote in those who would end all such unconstitutional things.



#3 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,865 posts
2,013
Excellent

Posted 15 July 2014 - 10:17 AM

    "I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

Jefferson was arguing that no generation has the moral or legal authority to bind the next.  Of course were the people of our nation to take upon themselves Jefferson's view that would mean indicting and imprisoning the entirety of the Federal Reserve, Treasury, the Executive and Congress -- right here and now -- for Racketeering and Grand Theft.

And of course it would also mean that the citizenry would have to take a long hard look at themselves.  Why were they voting for these people whom they must have known were liars, because way down deep inside, they know that nothing in this world comes without a cost . . . . no free lunches.  Why did they ask the government to do all the things they could not or were not willing to pay for.  What does it say about the honesty and integrity of the citizenry of the nation.  Oh, and lest we forget, you and I are part of the citizenry. 

 

I thought I just might add that last little bit because you all know how I love ruffling feathers.  Ruffle, ruffle, ruffle, ruffle. . . . . :popcorn:

 

God bless,

Larry

:clapping:



#4 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,529 posts
1,987
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 15 July 2014 - 11:20 AM

The Great Depression opened the door to much of this. During that time of crisis many looked to the government to help them and get their lives back in order. To an extent that's understandable, especially considering even then many folks refused to look for government help and simply did what was necessary to survive even if that surviving was at a very low standard for months or years.

 

Then, as is typical of government, once they had their nose in they were determined to not only keep it in, but to climb on in and take over. Little by little people got used to government assistance and little by little they added more and then others would become jealous and want something from the government so the government obliged. What better way to help destroy family unity, church/community relations and such.

 

Now, whether on the so-called Left of Right, there are voters who get some form of government goodies at the expense of tax payers. They may decry some of what others get but they will fight tooth and nail to protect their own and work hard to gain more.

 

With corporations, farmers, and citizens from virtually every economic level receiving some form of government special goodie, all of which encompasses over half the population, we are not going to see a voting bloc come forth to vote in those who would end all such unconstitutional things.

Well, of course, this was the whole point behind creating the great depression, specifically so that the government could step in and become the granny state. Each and every crisis that ends up with the government in more power over the citizenry are all designed and carefully planned and implemented-the gulf wars, 9-11, as well as the first failed attempt to bring down the towers in the 90"s; Waco, most if not all the big school shootings-because with each evernt, there is a drive by the government to implement more rules and regularions, more power to themselves and less to the citizens.

 

I realize I sound like a conspiracy nut, but consider how quickly legislation comes about after a big, surprising crisis, whereas it usually takes so long for them to do anything without pressure.



#5 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,865 posts
2,013
Excellent

Posted 15 July 2014 - 11:25 AM

Just wait til BO acts on the border crisis he engineered...especially since those horrible Republicans in the House denied his demand for millions to "take care" of it...



#6 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,529 posts
1,987
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 15 July 2014 - 05:56 PM

Just wait til BO acts on the border crisis he engineered...especially since those horrible Republicans in the House denied his demand for millions to "take care" of it...

4.2 Billion to be precise, and with no actual plan, just money to fix the problem.



#7 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,032 posts
5,482
Excellent

Posted 15 July 2014 - 06:41 PM

Part of their "plan" is to give hundreds of millions of dollars to these central American countries to use for public service ads to convince their people to stay there and not go to America.

 

Does anyone really believe such ads would be worth the money? Does anyone really believe the bulk of such money wouldn't end up in various politicians pockets rather than going for ads?

 

In the meantime, BO is shipping illegals across the country to spread them out.



#8 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,341 posts
478
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 15 July 2014 - 11:19 PM

I read a very interesting book called "The Curse of 1920" by Gary Naler. In it he chronicles through history, mainly after 1920, women's rights, after women nationwide started voting, everything has gone downhill since. With women's new "independence" of voting, led to independence from a man (divorce) when entering workforce, then politics, women making safety nets for women with their new found "independence" but still needing help. Basically, making the government now her "husband" to care for her needs and support her.

Interestingly, the very first documented woman voter was in Wyoming in 1870. On her way to vote, she brought along a pail to go to store to buy leaven. The city has a statue of her with her pail of leaven after voting. Coincidence? I think not. 



#9 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,032 posts
5,482
Excellent

Posted 16 July 2014 - 07:00 AM

Pastor Dabney, and others, warned back in the late 1800s of the dangers of feminism and where they would lead. At that time the feminist movement was ramping up and infecting many of the churches as well as the political scene. Reading of what went on then and looking at the homosexual movement of our day they are very much the same. Many who stood upon Scripture against much of the feminist movement were denounced as women haters, old fashioned, out of touch and worse. We see much the same today with regards to homosexuals. Just as the feminists eventually got a foothold in politics and churches and then began transforming them to their liking, so we see homosexuals doing that today.

 

My Mom always said WWII really tipped the scale for radical feminists and against marriage and family. With the men off fighting the government did everything they could to get women into the workforce. After several years in the workforce, and often learning to "act like a man" (smoking, drinking, even sleeping around...no, not truly manly qualities, but that's what feminists saw as part of being independent) and having a check in their pocket and being told that meant they didn't need a man, vastly corrupted American women across a large spectrum the feminists had been unable to reach before.

 

When the men came home from war many of the women refused to give up their jobs and return to being housewives. That's part of the reason for the G.I. Bill (it wasn't only because the economy was slowing down and there were fewer jobs as the government claims). Many women kept working, the returning men went to college, their children ran wild and this lead to the social upheaval and rejection of Christian morality in the 1960s.

 

It all goes back to women, and men too, refusing to abide by God's established order.

 

It's probably still online somewhere as someone put together the stats showing that if the women's vote were taken out of the picture we wouldn't have had most of our worst presidents. I remember the chart showed that Clinton wouldn't have won without women voters and I think the updated chart I last saw showed that Obama wouldn't have won without the women's vote.



#10 ThePilgrim

ThePilgrim

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
677
Excellent
  • LocationHillsboro, Oregon

Posted 16 July 2014 - 09:44 AM

I read a very interesting book called "The Curse of 1920" by Gary Naler. In it he chronicles through history, mainly after 1920, women's rights, after women nationwide started voting, everything has gone downhill since. With women's new "independence" of voting, led to independence from a man (divorce) when entering workforce, then politics, women making safety nets for women with their new found "independence" but still needing help. Basically, making the government now her "husband" to care for her needs and support her.

Interestingly, the very first documented woman voter was in Wyoming in 1870. On her way to vote, she brought along a pail to go to store to buy leaven. The city has a statue of her with her pail of leaven after voting. Coincidence? I think not. 

 

Pastor Dabney, and others, warned back in the late 1800s of the dangers of feminism and where they would lead. At that time the feminist movement was ramping up and infecting many of the churches as well as the political scene. Reading of what went on then and looking at the homosexual movement of our day they are very much the same. Many who stood upon Scripture against much of the feminist movement were denounced as women haters, old fashioned, out of touch and worse. We see much the same today with regards to homosexuals. Just as the feminists eventually got a foothold in politics and churches and then began transforming them to their liking, so we see homosexuals doing that today.

 

My Mom always said WWII really tipped the scale for radical feminists and against marriage and family. With the men off fighting the government did everything they could to get women into the workforce. After several years in the workforce, and often learning to "act like a man" (smoking, drinking, even sleeping around...no, not truly manly qualities, but that's what feminists saw as part of being independent) and having a check in their pocket and being told that meant they didn't need a man, vastly corrupted American women across a large spectrum the feminists had been unable to reach before.

 

When the men came home from war many of the women refused to give up their jobs and return to being housewives. That's part of the reason for the G.I. Bill (it wasn't only because the economy was slowing down and there were fewer jobs as the government claims). Many women kept working, the returning men went to college, their children ran wild and this lead to the social upheaval and rejection of Christian morality in the 1960s.

 

It all goes back to women, and men too, refusing to abide by God's established order.

 

It's probably still online somewhere as someone put together the stats showing that if the women's vote were taken out of the picture we wouldn't have had most of our worst presidents. I remember the chart showed that Clinton wouldn't have won without women voters and I think the updated chart I last saw showed that Obama wouldn't have won without the women's vote.

I never thought I would hear such talk on this forum, especially from a lady.  I have kept my mouth closed on this forum about such things as women's suffrage, not wishing to endure the scorn of all (especially the ladies).  You know as I type this I have a dread to even use that word . . . . LADY.  It seems so out of place these days to so many women. 

 

I must also admit that I am somewhat of a coward when it comes to women (even in the church) because when I talk of such things as feminism and the role of women in the world (such as keeping a home and raising children instead of "careers") I find myself doing it in sort of a humorous or joking manner, knowing they will just put up with me and attribute it to a harmless, senile old curmudgeon who doesn't know any better. 

 

A couple of things that I truly believe are based on my observations during my life and reading of history and the bible (should have put the bible first). The people whose women will not have children and nurture them will not long endure.  The women who will not tame the men will have men who are savages. 

 

Well, now you've done it Larry!  You better duck! :hide:

 

God bless,

Larry



#11 AVBibleBeliever

AVBibleBeliever

    A True AV Bible Believer

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,330 posts
288
Excellent
  • LocationCentral Virginia

Posted 16 July 2014 - 09:54 AM

The Feminist attitude is in plenty of Women in the church today, especially those who went to Public Schools.



#12 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,341 posts
478
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 16 July 2014 - 10:13 AM

I downloaded the book for around $3 two years ago. Probably could be found now for 99cents. I thought I was treading on thin ice when I told my pastor and his wife about it but they agreed with me so I knew it radical thinking or wrong.



#13 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,033 posts
477
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 16 July 2014 - 10:41 AM

Actually, the Luddites were right - opposing mechanization of jobs & which made many of the hardworking poor destitute. If 1920 is the standard of excellence in politics, then the rise of the automobile, commercial flying, calculating machines, radio, television, cinema, public education, the rise of socialism, the rise of capitalism, the acceptance of Darwinism, medical advances, & a host of things we could mention can be blamed.

 

Statistics proves everything & nothing.



#14 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,865 posts
2,013
Excellent

Posted 16 July 2014 - 10:41 AM

Here's an interesting quote about the book Vindication the Founders. (since so many folks today try to say that women were second-class citizens in the founders' minds). The book sounds really good...

 

 

Women were understood by everyone to be included in the "all men" (all human beings) who are created equal. In New Jersey, women voted in elections routinely during the 1790s and early 1800s, for the first time anywhere in world history . This fact, as we will see, is clearly connected to the Founders' equality principle. So also was the idea, which grew during and after the founding era, that women and men have equal importance, but different roles, in the family and society. The best protection of women's rights, in the minds of both the men and the women of the founding era, was the core private association of a free and civilized society: lifelong marriage and the family. The alternatives—permitting no-fault divorce, pushing women into the job market, and legitimizing the treatment of women (and men) as sex objects—were thought to dehumanize and exploit, not liberate.

New Jersey actually passed a law in 1797 stating women could vote (until 1807, when the law was changed to specify only while males could vote...not to be hostile to women,but to insure that slaves and aliens didn't vote - because their 1776 constitution stated "all inhabitants" could vote).  heh - women didn't even protest that change!  Try that today and see what happens!  :bigshock:

 

The Constitution left voter qualifications up to each state (which was the right and proper thing to do).  The 19th amendment (ratified in 1920) didn't actually give women the right to vote - it just guaranteed that women had the right, still leaving it up to the states.  By ratification date, though, 3/4 of the states already allowed women to vote in at least some of their elections (and ratification along with rabble-rousing led to the other states passing laws to do so).

 

It's interesting to note that the women's suffrage movement demanded voting rights for women - when many states already had them. Of course, it wasn't "universal", so that may have been the impetus, but I doubt it...

 

One of the reasons some states didn't allow women to vote (and in NY, only with permission of the husband) was that the husband and wife were considered one unit, and to allow her to vote was to allow the man actually two votes.  :coverlaugh:  Wellll...

 

It wouldn't bother me if the vote was taken away from women (as long as men educate themselves, that is...something that, sadly, doesn't happen today), but the fact remains that it is the law that women can vote.  And so, I vote.  However, my vote gives my hubby two.   :clap:  We always discuss any votes, we pray about what we are going to do - and we vote the same way.  If I disagree with something/one my hubby is voting for, I simply don't vote (with his complete permission and approval) because I will not do something to cancel out his vote (that - my not voting on one thing - only happened once in 28 years of marriage). We are a team and so work together as such even in the voting process.  My hubby even still opens doors for me (something he taught our son to do as well).   :yeah:



#15 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 16 July 2014 - 11:26 AM

The Feminist attitude is in plenty of Women in the church today, especially those who went to Public Schools.

 
Your post sounds like you made it up yourself, AVBB.  I was raised primarily in public school, aside from two years in parochial school while in junior high.

When the church women had a class on submission, I was completely taken back, as my mother was the most submissive woman that I knew.  I grew up in an RCC home, where the man was certainly the head of the household.  My mom trained her daughters to be like her.  She worked outside the home to send us to college, b/c she wanted us to fall back on something if our husband's should pass on.  Little did she know that my first marriage was to an abusive man who would have murdered me, if I stayed with him.  I am not a feminist and will never be one.  My second husband is the head of my household.  I don't know where you get off with your post about women going to public school being feminist.  Do you have proof to back this up?  Statistics?  Anything?  I resent you calling me a feminist b/c I was reared primarily in a public school system, of which was and still is the best public school system in the State of OH.



#16 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,032 posts
5,482
Excellent

Posted 16 July 2014 - 11:38 AM

Public schools teach feminism and it infects the girls attending to one degree or another. Public schools don't turn every girl into a radical feminist, but a good portion of the feminist doctrine gets into the minds of the girls (and boys too) even if they don't realize it.

 

It's interesting in Sunday school when we reach portions of Scripture dealing with matters such as women's role in the church or marriage and such. There are a couple of women who really bristle and start talking about things which they don't even realize come straight out of the feminist playbook. These are good women, not radical feminists by any stretch, but through school and elsewhere they have picked up so much of the feminist message that it's deep engrained in them. I'm glad our pastor has the patience and tact to direct them away from where their first inclination to go is, and instead steer them back to Scripture and a discussion of what Scripture actually says, what it means and how we are to apply it.

 

Likely as not the feminist stuff I picked up when I attended public school would be infecting me much worse now were it not for my Mom countering such and what I've learned from Scripture and biblically sound preaching.



#17 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,865 posts
2,013
Excellent

Posted 16 July 2014 - 11:50 AM

 
Your post sounds like you made it up yourself, AVBB.  I was raised primarily in public school, aside from two years in parochial school while in junior high.

When the church women had a class on submission, I was completely taken back, as my mother was the most submissive woman that I knew.  I grew up in an RCC home, where the man was certainly the head of the household.  My mom trained her daughters to be like her.  She worked outside the home to send us to college, b/c she wanted us to fall back on something if our husband's should pass on.  Little did she know that my first marriage was to an abusive man who would have murdered me, if I stayed with him.  I am not a feminist and will never be one.  My second husband is the head of my household.  I don't know where you get off with your post about women going to public school being feminist.  Do you have proof to back this up?  Statistics?  Anything?  I resent you calling me a feminist b/c I was reared primarily in a public school system, of which was and still is the best public school system in the State of OH.

Did you want to start an argument?  It sure seems like it with this post.  Calm down.  And re-read what he said: he didn't say it was every woman, he said it was plenty of women. And he's absolutely right.  You not being a feminist does not make his statement wrong.

 

I also went to public school for a few of my school years. And they were teaching feminism then - even before you were in high school.  Does that mean everyone who attended became feminist? Of course not. But it certainly affected the majority. Being indoctrinated in something does that, as you know from being a teacher.

 

Families go a long way toward battling that kind of stuff, thankfully. Obviously your mom was able to combat it in you.  But let's not turn this thread acrimonious.  Thanks.



#18 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 16 July 2014 - 12:08 PM

Did you want to start an argument?  It sure seems like it with this post.  Calm down.  And re-read what he said: he didn't say it was every woman, he said it was plenty of women. And he's absolutely right.  You not being a feminist does not make his statement wrong.

 

I also went to public school for a few of my school years. And they were teaching feminism then - even before you were in high school.  Does that mean everyone who attended became feminist? Of course not. But it certainly affected the majority. Being indoctrinated in something does that, as you know from being a teacher.

 

Families go a long way toward battling that kind of stuff, thankfully. Obviously your mom was able to combat it in you.  But let's not turn this thread acrimonious.  Thanks.

 

Not at all, HC.  I am very calm.  I am merely stating that my mom who was raised in the RCC and got saved later in life, taught both her daughters how to be submissive.  It seems that the IFB has a grasp on submission, while other religions do not.  That is my point.  My parents taught me morals and values at home.  What I learned in the public school has made me very aware on reaching souls that are lost.  If AVBB has statistical proof that those women reared in public school are feminists, then I would love to see it.  My pastor's wife, my MIL and another older woman who conducted the submission classes we very surprised that I knew how to be a submissive wife.  It was the "home grown" Baptist women that needed the course.  My mom, a woman from the era of the Great Depression, along with various aunts showed me and my sister how to be a submissive wife.  For example, they always voted for the same candidate that their husbands voted for.  I learned it from them.  I didn't need the Bible to show me that what they taught me was correct.  When I began reading and studying the word of God, it reiterated what I had already known.  Comments such as AVBB shared on this forum have no business on a Bible believing site.  It is just his opinion.  This is my experience and I believe it is an over generalization to paint public school children with a broad brush.  Learning begins at home.



#19 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,865 posts
2,013
Excellent

Posted 16 July 2014 - 12:15 PM

Not at all, HC.  I am very calm.  I am merely stating that my mom who was raised in the RCC and got saved later in life, taught both her daughters how to be submissive.  It seems that the IFB has a grasp on submission, while other religions do not.  That is my point.  My parents taught me morals and values at home.  What I learned in the public school has made me very aware on reaching souls that are lost.  If AVBB has statistical proof that those women reared in public school are feminists, then I would love to see it.  My pastor's wife, my MIL and another older woman who conducted the submission classes we very surprised that I knew how to be a submissive wife.  It was the "home grown" Baptist women that needed the course.  My mom, a woman from the era of the Great Depression, along with various aunts showed me and my sister how to be a submissive wife.  For example, they always voted for the same candidate that their husbands voted for.  I learned it from them.  I didn't need the Bible to show me that what they taught me was correct.  When I began reading and studying the word of God, it reiterated what I had already known.  Comments such as AVBB shared on this forum have no business on a Bible believing site.  It is just his opinion.  This is my experience and I believe it is an over generalization to paint public school children with a broad brush.  Learning begins at home.

My point is that you don't need to be combative about it.  Your statement that I bolded is completely wrong.  His opinions are as welcome as yours, which you have shared in abundance in the past - as have we all.

 

I'm glad you're calm. AVBB doesn't need statistical proof - all anyone need do is look around at the current product of public schools. Not ALL of them, but many.  And there are many Christian women who are feminist without intention because of what they were taught.  *shrugs* I've been in a lot of churches, met a lot of Christian women who attended public school, and it is a truth. It is a given that what people are taught in school will follow them throughout life. Oftentimes even after they are saved.

 

Nothing was broad-brushed. Broadbrushing would be be to say that every single Christian woman who went to public school is a feminist. That wasn't what was said.  So let's move on...



#20 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 16 July 2014 - 01:26 PM

4.2 Billion to be precise, and with no actual plan, just money to fix the problem.

Wait a minute here! That trailing 2 on your figure above was to secure the border!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500