Didn’t listen to the podcast but of course it was provocation. Quite brilliant in my opinion. It was provoking Trump, the face of the Republican Party.
Republican candidates don’t want to talk Trump. Their plan was for the upcoming elections to not be about Trump but to be about gas prices, the boarder, crime, and so on. The idea was for Trump to be as quiet as possible. Some were even admitting they never say his name, “ever”. But as we know, Trump feeds on the cameras pointed his way.
Little Joey from Stratton, along with making many MAGAnuts mighty mad, was bating Trump. And it worked. And now Trump, the face of the GOP is on the road and rallying, consuming the oxygen and hogging the cameras. Trump, being the egomaniac he is, couldn’t resist the bait, putting those wanting to distance themselves from him on the hook as well.
It reminds me of that SNL spoof when Will Ferrell playing GWB told voters to think of his face when entering the voting booth.
You may be right. but I think it is far deeper than that. This is not a provocation of Trump, but a provocation of his supporters and an existential threat to them. To provoke them to rally (with FBI provocateurs) and then to persecute them as he did the Jan 6th protesters. I am not sure Trump is the best choice for Republicans, but he is the only one actively opposing the impostor. The broadcast is about the Christian response to the provocation.
Since you asked about the Christian response, I'd look to the first three centuries of Christianity. While we may not have liked it, we did not resist, believed taking up arms was wrong and many, in the face of real persecution, even death, many stood tall and accepted the punishment the state meted out, as did Jesus.
So how should we respond to provocations and persecution from government, no matter the country? I'd look to Paul, who spent a lot of time in prison for his faith and if tradition holds, was beheaded for his faith/antiRoman stance.
He said, I've learned to be content...
Many I am sure will look elsewhere for guidance, but these were believers closest to Jesus. The first believers, some who knew him personally, who made decisions in their lives to avoid violence, stand firm in their faith and accept whatever was given to them.
While I understand that response, the early Christians lived in a world where they had no political power. They had no vote and therefore no practical responsibility for the morality of the world they lived in other than their witness. Which, granted, was very powerful. Our government is by the people. We therefore have a responsibility for action. Pretty much like the parable of the talents, We are given much. Much is required. Jesus did not rebuke Peter for carrying a sword and told us to sell our cloak and buy one. This Saturday, if my guest comes through, we'll be having a discussion of exactly this. May not be your cup of tea, but it will be based on Romans 13. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56434604-unlimited-submission-how-romans-13 Thanks for stopping by.
Have you read How the Church (and the State) Failed Abigail Martinez by Mo Hodge Ministry? That brings up one point that grieves me about the current trans movement and (sometimes) how parts of the Church responds.
Well Ed, there's a lot of scholarship, from both the left and the right, that says Jesus was not advocating people actually buying swords. Also, while yes, Peter had a sword with him, he was rebuked for using it.
And while not 100% pacifistic, the great majority of the early church did not believe you could serve if as a Christian, you were drafted into the Roman Army. Although there was some dispensation for members of the army who accepted Jesus post induction.
In the end, I'd still stand, as Paul did, on contentment as our best response. Because I don't see things like anger, rage and wrath as fruits of the spirit.
I. am. so. outraged. concerning this Admin, I can't even ... yeah, it's all anger, wrath and rage and also lunacy on their part! I'm just glad that because of Jesus Christ, they lose. Big. Sparky xx
That's what my broadcast and Wood's book is about. Handling the anger that this administration evokes. Scherie heard the first cut of my intro and asked if I was angry when I recorded it. I re-recorded it. I was still angry.
Didn’t listen to the podcast but of course it was provocation. Quite brilliant in my opinion. It was provoking Trump, the face of the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteRepublican candidates don’t want to talk Trump. Their plan was for the upcoming elections to not be about Trump but to be about gas prices, the boarder, crime, and so on. The idea was for Trump to be as quiet as possible. Some were even admitting they never say his name, “ever”. But as we know, Trump feeds on the cameras pointed his way.
Little Joey from Stratton, along with making many MAGAnuts mighty mad, was bating Trump. And it worked. And now Trump, the face of the GOP is on the road and rallying, consuming the oxygen and hogging the cameras. Trump, being the egomaniac he is, couldn’t resist the bait, putting those wanting to distance themselves from him on the hook as well.
It reminds me of that SNL spoof when Will Ferrell playing GWB told voters to think of his face when entering the voting booth.
You may be right. but I think it is far deeper than that.
DeleteThis is not a provocation of Trump, but a provocation of his supporters and an existential threat to them.
To provoke them to rally (with FBI provocateurs) and then to persecute them as he did the Jan 6th protesters.
I am not sure Trump is the best choice for Republicans, but he is the only one actively opposing the impostor.
The broadcast is about the Christian response to the provocation.
Since you asked about the Christian response, I'd look to the first three centuries of Christianity. While we may not have liked it, we did not resist, believed taking up arms was wrong and many, in the face of real persecution, even death, many stood tall and accepted the punishment the state meted out, as did Jesus.
DeleteSo how should we respond to provocations and persecution from government, no matter the country? I'd look to Paul, who spent a lot of time in prison for his faith and if tradition holds, was beheaded for his faith/antiRoman stance.
He said, I've learned to be content...
Many I am sure will look elsewhere for guidance, but these were believers closest to Jesus. The first believers, some who knew him personally, who made decisions in their lives to avoid violence, stand firm in their faith and accept whatever was given to them.
Even death.
While I understand that response, the early Christians lived in a world where they had no political power.
DeleteThey had no vote and therefore no practical responsibility for the morality of the world they lived in other than their witness.
Which, granted, was very powerful.
Our government is by the people. We therefore have a responsibility for action.
Pretty much like the parable of the talents,
We are given much. Much is required.
Jesus did not rebuke Peter for carrying a sword and told us to sell our cloak and buy one.
This Saturday, if my guest comes through, we'll be having a discussion of exactly this. May not be your cup of tea, but it will be based on Romans 13.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56434604-unlimited-submission-how-romans-13
Thanks for stopping by.
Have you read How the Church (and the State) Failed Abigail Martinez by Mo Hodge Ministry? That brings up one point that grieves me about the current trans movement and (sometimes) how parts of the Church responds.
DeleteWithout reading the book, what's the point brought up?
DeleteFound this: https://familycouncil.org/?p=24874
DeleteSomebody needs to be brought to justice for that.
DeleteWell Ed, there's a lot of scholarship, from both the left and the right, that says Jesus was not advocating people actually buying swords. Also, while yes, Peter had a sword with him, he was rebuked for using it.
DeleteAnd while not 100% pacifistic, the great majority of the early church did not believe you could serve if as a Christian, you were drafted into the Roman Army. Although there was some dispensation for members of the army who accepted Jesus post induction.
In the end, I'd still stand, as Paul did, on contentment as our best response. Because I don't see things like anger, rage and wrath as fruits of the spirit.
Be angry and sin not. You didn't listen and I won't repeat the discussion here.
DeleteI. am. so. outraged. concerning this Admin, I can't even ... yeah, it's all anger, wrath and rage and also lunacy on their part! I'm just glad that because of Jesus Christ, they lose. Big.
ReplyDeleteSparky xx
That's what my broadcast and Wood's book is about.
DeleteHandling the anger that this administration evokes.
Scherie heard the first cut of my intro and asked if I was angry when I recorded it.
I re-recorded it. I was still angry.
Just saw a picture. So Teutonic looking. So Nuremberg looking.
ReplyDeleteBAYSIDER
JP Sears has a good take on it:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSGTlrA0BfE&t=869s
Good one!
DeleteBaysider
Leni Riefenstahl wants to talk to them about misuse of her work...
ReplyDelete