Jump to content


Member Since 07 Aug 2011
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:56 PM

#389530 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by ThePilgrim on Yesterday, 10:45 PM

Here is a table from  Definition of Terms:

Society and Organization

The basic organization of society reflects the worldview of the individuals involved at each level.

General forms of organization


Hierarchy A pyramid-style social and economic control structure. The freedom and authority of one group of individuals is limited by a smaller, more powerful group at the next higher level.


Bureaucracy The operational levels of a hierarchical control structure, either government or corporate. Success in the organization is based on obedience and conformity. Collectivist forms of organization


Communist A theoretical form of Socialism where all individuals are equal, all property is jointly owned, and all decisions are made by consensus of the collective without the need for "the State".


Socialist A form of Democracy where all property is owned by "the State", and all decisions are made by public committees sometimes known as soviets. Degenerates into an Oligarchy with top-down control via the central committee and the bureaucracy.


Democracy A system in which the collective will of the majority is considered absolute. Property may be owned collectively or privately. It is dominated by political activists and financial interests who mobilize majority groups to exercise control over minority groups on specific issues. Degenerates into an Oligarchy as the most successful manipulators consolidate their wealth and position. Individualist forms of organization


Anarchy A non-hierarchical system in which each individual exercises complete self-government. An ideal and unstable condition that rapidly degenerates into a Democracy for any group larger than a few individuals.


Republic A system in which a charter defines certain rules and limitations on the will of the majority, safeguarding individual and minority group rights. Most property is owned privately rather than collectively. The upper levels of the hierarchy are selected by and accountable to the public, and their power is limited by the charter. Degenerates into an Oligarchy as the charter is gradually bypassed, and power and property are concentrated.


Federation A group of Republics acting together for mutual advantage, while maintaining their independent authority. Degenerates into an Empire as the constituent Republics yield power to a central authority which eventually assumes control.


Capitalist An economic system based on individual ownership of property and capital, compatible with individualist forms of political organization. Tends to degenerate into an elitist system as capital is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands (monopoly capitalism). Elitist forms of organization


Monarchy A hierarchy where the top level is comprised of a "royal" family which exercises absolute control and owns all property. The upper levels are comprised of "noble" families which receive and maintain their titles at the discretion of the royalty. Control and property are passed on to bloodline descendents of these families.


Oligarchy A hierarchy where the top level is comprised of an elite group of individuals which are united by ideology in addition to family bloodlines. The upper levels are comprised of corporations, foundations and other long-lived entities controlled by this group. Control and property are passed on to group members chosen for their loyalty.


Fascist A hierarchy which permits a certain degree of "private" business ownership and operation under its oversight, as opposed to a Socialist system where all production is directly owned and controlled by the State.


Dictatorship A hierarchy where the top level is controlled by a single strongman who maintains his position by force and terror. Tends to collapse due to corruption and lack of internal support. Empire A hierarchy spanning multiple regions. Normally the result of a hostile takeover of one or more weaker entities by a stronger and more aggressive one. The weaker entities may continue to exist as client states without independent authority.


Totalitarian A rigid hierarchy which is especially intolerant of individual freedom or dissent. Authoritarian A rigid hierarchy under the authority of a single ruler (eg: Emperor, Dictator)

So looking at the table pick out America's form of government as it is today.


This table can be found at:http://modernhistory...cle=Definitions

#389529 "Ban The Person Above You" Game

Posted by ThePilgrim on Yesterday, 10:23 PM

Ban NN for going bananas on us.

#389493 "Ban The Person Above You" Game

Posted by ThePilgrim on Yesterday, 05:36 PM

Ban NN für das Sprechen seiner Muttersprache

#389390 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by ThePilgrim on 28 September 2014 - 11:07 PM

"But I'm glad that ours still has some checks and balances left, lest we have a real king/dictator/tyrant to deal with."

Aren't very many checks and balances left and those are not used very much to control the powerful.  Think of the 2008 banking  fiasco when all kinds of shenanigans took place in the financial and banking sector.  The banks have been and continue to be bailed out and none of the instigators have served a day in prison.  So the checks and balances don't seem to work when it comes to the bad checks and phony balances of the powerful financial sector.  If anybody thinks my calling these people criminals is simply hyperbole or just sour grapes on my part, I can post plenty of names and evidence.  

#389086 Eric Holder Has Resigned!

Posted by ThePilgrim on 26 September 2014 - 08:02 PM

"Before you answer please ponder upon this '' Gods judgement must first begin at His House "


I think you very intelligently answered your own question.

#389076 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by ThePilgrim on 26 September 2014 - 04:10 PM

The actual word that is used to define our government is "Oligarchy": a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

It is a rare occasion when anybody agrees with me but this time I am not alone in my opinion: http://www.telegraph...-concludes.html

#389053 Maple Tea

Posted by ThePilgrim on 26 September 2014 - 12:57 PM

Buttermilk only belongs in biscuits or pancakes or bread.  Yuk!  Why would anyone drink it on purpose?  :popcorn:

#389052 Hypocrisy Left And Right

Posted by ThePilgrim on 26 September 2014 - 12:53 PM

If a persons religious beliefs are not a part of the article, I see nothing wrong as long as the facts are correct.  I the facts are obviously tainted by religious beliefs then there would be a problem.

It is usually not to difficult to tell if it is.

#388958 Sorry No Cameras Allowed Here.

Posted by ThePilgrim on 25 September 2014 - 07:46 PM

Not surprised at all.  If you want somebody to lose control of their ego and become a tyrant, just give them a government job.

#388783 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by ThePilgrim on 24 September 2014 - 02:24 PM

Since we were first called Christians, why I will settle for being called that.  If a longer label is needed: how about Bible Believing Christian.  I can not help it if other's seem to have spoiled the name with their heresies, Christian is what I am.  


Acts 26:28-29
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
1 Peter 4:16
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

#388756 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by ThePilgrim on 24 September 2014 - 11:37 AM

When one gets the notion in his head that only he and those who belong to his group are the especially anointed messengers of Jesus Christ in their head they begin to sound much like a cult.  :hide:

#388683 Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609

Posted by ThePilgrim on 23 September 2014 - 01:15 PM


If Baptists are Baptist by doctrine, or as Jim puts it 'doctrine, belief and practice', then why would it matter if someone wanted to call the church they are part of 'protestant' to indicate that some time in the past that church's early members had been under the yoke of catholicism and had come out from it (presumably at great cost to themselves)? It would be in the same vein as folk calling their church 'independent' or 'fundamentalist'. The important thing wouldn't be where they had come from, but what they had become.


It would matter only in our endeavor to trace our history. If, in tracing our history, we come to this supposed church, then the doctrinal history would stop there, because before that they were Protestants. This is the mistake that the OP made that led him to believe that Baptists had, at one time come out of the reformation.


But not knowing the exact circumstances of their divergence from the Protestant movement we can only guess at best as to whether or not they had become a true New Testament Church. As I said in another post any authority, including church authority has a source. The original source for church authority is Jesus Christ. This authority is preserved down through the ages by one church begetting (or authorizing) another of the same faith and order.
Yet the argument on this thread seems to be (and I may have misunderstood it) that one simply can't be a Baptist if one's ancestors or one's particular church's founders were folk who came out of catholicism. If that's true, it means that Baptists are not just Baptist by doctrine, but by lineage also--i.e. you can only be Baptist if your ancestors were Baptist (even if not by name).


Again the issue of authority comes into play here. In the illustration you gave above I would have to say that if they just decided to start teaching Baptist doctrine, without  any attempt to seek approval of an existing Baptist church, this would not constitute them as a Baptist church.


I keep saying that authority has a source. I am trying to not get too long winded here but perhaps a short illustration is in order. Let's use a police department for an illustration of authority. A police department derives its authority from a government entity such as a city, state or county.


Now, I decide I want to start a police department. I go buy uniforms, badges, police cars and am determined to uphold the laws of the land. Does this make what I have created a police department? Of course not. Why? Because I lack proper authority.

In another thread, GraceSaved was explaining her dilemma of not being near a Biblically-sound IFB church. The reaction of lots of people on this forum was to say that she should start one with other believers at someone's home, even if it meant that they wouldn't have a Pastor to start with.


Now are you saying that if Gracesaved and the other hypothetical believers had been muslims or a catholics before their salvation, then it would be forever impossible for them to group together as a church, no matter their doctrine, beliefs and practice?


No, I am not saying this at all. The advice given to Gracesaved was solid advice and was also predicated by saying that this group that have banded together should seek out the approval of an existing Baptist church. This is a good example of how mission churches are eventually established as a separate Independent Church.


I hope this helps clarify my stand on this issue without having to write and book to explain it.


I suppose one can claim to get authority for their church where ever one chooses but as for me I will seek it from Jesus Christ alone.  If I am so led to start an assembly in my home I need not seek sanction from anyone other than God alone.  It is Him I seek to please, not some ecclesiastical organization whatever it's name.

#388542 Last Day Of The Uk?

Posted by ThePilgrim on 20 September 2014 - 11:50 PM

Wall Street and The City of London are all for Scotland staying the way it is so I don't think there will be any trouble there.

#388288 Letter To The Editor: Rick Warren, The Road To Rome, And More Trouble At Biol...

Posted by ThePilgrim on 20 September 2014 - 05:40 AM

As I always say, "My how times change."  Drift.  It seems sometimes that everything just seems to drift.  Nothing ever seems to stay in the same place . . . . just drifts away to someplace else. . . . endless change . . . . never stops.

Thank You Lord that You never drift off to some other place . . . . You never change . . . . yesterday . . . . today . . . . tomorrow . . . . all the same . . . . never change.  Thank You Lord.

#388036 Way Of Life - Country Music: A Safe Alternaive?

Posted by ThePilgrim on 18 September 2014 - 05:42 PM

Another thing about Folk music.  All the traditional melodies are free from copyright and anybody and everybody can use them.  Makes it nice for people who write a poem and set it to music ( I have done several myself).

Simple melodies, simple words, and simple guitar, dulcimer, autoharp, banjo . . . . just good, fun music.  Love it!

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500