Current Events > Liberals: if you aren't with us you're against us

(+) Yeah! (+)

Conservatives: if you're against the liberals you're with us
---

And?
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Conservatives: if you're against the liberals you're with us

That's almost verbatim Rush Limbaugh's tag line.
---

non-affiliated center: everyone is against us
---

Libertarians: if youre with us youre a fucking idiot

Green Party - cuz why tf not?
---

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?
---

something something liherals
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Conservatives: if you're against the liberals you're with us

that doesn't make Conservatives look good, you know.
---

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdvm6h8WKg
Gotta sell that war. Good enough of a tag line to do it.
---

ugh, this guy again

tc your topics are all stupid af

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

Jesus also said "he who is not with me, is against me"
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

Jesus also said "he who is not with me, is against me"

Source?
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

Jesus also said "he who is not with me, is against me"

Source?

the bible

look it up
---

The context of that quote is pretty important. It's from Matthew 12:22-37 where the Pharisees say Jesus is of Satan.

Anyway, some of the responses ITT really tell you who has their ideological clubs figured out
---

Only a Sith speaks in absolutes!
---

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

And leftists literally called him a Sith Lord as a result.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The context of that quote is pretty important. It's from Matthew 12:22-37 where the Pharisees say Jesus is of Satan.

Anyway, some of the responses ITT really tell you who has their ideological clubs figured out

And what context do you believe is left out?

He said "he who is not with me, is against me."

In what way would you like to twist this to mean something other than what it literally says?

He also corroborates this same idea through the rest of the bible.
"a man cannot serve two masters"
"Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness?"
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

So in what way can you not be for Jesus but not against him?
---

That entire verse is clearly not just to be taken on the surface. It's full of deep meaning, perhaps more than any other verse in the Bible

I mean, just read the next two sentences. "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." It's impossible to take a simple meaning from that.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

That entire verse is clearly not just to be taken on the surface. It's full of deep meaning, perhaps more than any other verse in the Bible

I mean, just read the next two sentences. "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." It's impossible to take a simple meaning from that.

"we just can't understand it"

or can you? Tell me what you think it means.

I mean, why do you not like that Jesus meant what he said here?
Because then he said what liberal's said according to you?

Are you that shallow?
---

I think it means that there is some "essence" (in other words the Holy Spirit) that you can blaspheme against. But what is the Holy Spirit? And how do you blaspheme against it? have no idea. In any case, these sentences are directly connected. They are connected grammatically by "And so I tell you".

I really don't care about the liberal vs. conservative thing. I just though that was a funny observation about modern politics. I care about Jesus' word, and that verse has always puzzled me. It seems like you're trying to oversimplify Jesus' words, and I'm indignant to that.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

Jesus also said "he who is not with me, is against me"

Source?

the bible

look it up

I'm talking about a source that has high-than-infowars level of credibility.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I think it means that there is some "essence" (in other words the Holy Spirit) that you can blaspheme against. But what is the Holy Spirit? And how do you blaspheme against it? have no idea. In any case, these sentences are directly connected. They are connected grammatically by "And so I tell you".

I really don't care about the liberal vs. conservative thing. I just though that was a funny observation about modern politics. I care about Jesus' word, and that verse has always puzzled me. It seems like you're trying to oversimplify Jesus' words, and I'm indignant to that.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is super simple. Go back to the context of the verse and you will see it.

He was condemning the pharisees and warning them that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit wouldn't be forgiven.
Why would he tell them that?

They were saying his miracles were done because Satan gave him power. How did Jesus do miracles? Every biblical figure who did miracles has the Holy Spirit. Look back to David whom it was claimed the spirit of God rested mightily upon.

So Jesus was performing miracles by the Holy Spirit and the pharisees said that it wasn't the Holy Spirit but Satan that was doing said mircales.

This is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I didn't simplify anything. His sentence is already simple. Do you think he only intends that ONLY the Pharisees who aren't with him are against him? Or does he mean that anyone who is not with him is against him?

It is very obvious. Jesus demands the Christian to be in his camp. You can't be a spiritual atheist or pagan christian. Your spirituality cannot be compromised. You cannot serve God and mammon or that is, be heavily involved in worldly pleasures for self gain and say you are a zealous Christian.
"he who doesn't gather with me, scatters."
What does that mean? You understand that the work of saving souls is referred to as reaping or that is gathering up the fruits of the harvest correct?

I find it ironic that the verse puzzles you when you argue that it needs to be contextually considered. This isn't to slight you but to say the reason most don't understand this verse is because they remove the context. In context, what else could the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit be other than what the Pharisees jsut did by calling the miracles of God the work of the devil?
---

To suppliment the idea found here, consider these verses:

Matthew 10
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew 8
19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Luke 9
61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

What is the central theme of these verse? What do you think?
---

he who demands the horseshoe is left pulling the cart
---

You are right that Jesus reiterates that following him costs a lot and is far from easy. One of the most interesting things about Jesus is that many of the things that he says can easily be turned around to make him seem bad and his teachings not worth following. But the fact is that he talks about the importance of forgiveness and acceptance of others. Whatever the case, Jesus says what he says, and what he says is the eternal truth. I don't know if you personally believe that or not.

Jesus says "if you aren't with me you're against me", but that is not saying if you don't give up all your possessions and live like a monk, you are eternally damned. Jesus is accepting of all and died to save all. A very simple and famous verse: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

A very simple and famous verse: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Most translations actually render this as "should not" and not "shall not".
And that is the better translation because Jesus himself said many will call him lord lord and say they worked in his name and he will send them to hell.
If anyone who believes shall not perish, this would be impossible. If you contend with this, explain how any believer SHALL not perish and yet Jesus sends people claiming he is their lord to eternal damnation?
If anyone who believes SHOULD not perish, then Jesus' words make sense. That man shouldn't have perished, and yet he did, because as Jesus says in the section of scripture "he who doeth the will" of his father is saved, not just he who believes and by the belief calls him lord and claims to do some sort of works. Notice the distinction between doing works they thought please God to him saying there is a specific will he wishes for the Christian.
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

As a note, this is not legalism. There is a work of God that a man must do to be saved that is not counted as his works. I can quote you that belief itself is a WORK of God. That is, there is a prerequisite to salvation that is not of man's credit, and these people didn't do that. They did believe however. Can you argue a man calling him lord and attempting to work for him didn't believe in him? So then, they had belief and yet were still damned. What did they lack?

http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%203:16
This has a list of all the translations. Note the ones that put should instead of shall.
I noted 9 saying shall and about 20 saying should. Nevertheless, as discussed only one makes sense in terms with other scripture and that is the kicker.

Now, all that said, what does it have to do with our discussion? His love and acceptance, why do you need to point that out in reference to a simple statement by Jesus?
It makes me wonder what your goal is here?
Are you trying to take away from the power of "he who is not with me, is against me" somehow? I generally don't understand why you think it needs to be said that you don't need to live as a monk with no possessions.
---

Ok now you're just arguing about semantics. Should isn't necessarily a conditional word and shall doesn't necessarily mean definitely. With the "Lord, Lord" thing, I think he's talking about hypocrites who appear good on the outside but are really evil in their hearts.

Originally, were you trying to say that conservatives are bad or liberals are good because Jesus also said if you aren't with me you're against me? If not then good, I really don't have anything more to argue about. I already told you what I think.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Should isn't necessarily a conditional word and shall doesn't necessarily mean definitely.

I don't know what to say about this. Shall most definitely means there is nothing else. It shall be done means only that it without dispute will be. Should also has no other meaning than the possibly of correctness is what is expected, but not necessarily what will happen.

It isn't an argument of semantics anyways, but one of innovation. Consider the texts that have shall there and date them. The oldest one was made in about the 50s. The translations with should predate it by quite a lot. Makes you wonder why this happened, especially when there was a large movement to patent or that is to make profits off of translations by purposely changing words and phrases such that the text was no longer considered public domain.

Damn_Underscore posted...

With the "Lord, Lord" thing, I think he's talking about hypocrites who appear good on the outside but are really evil in their hearts.

And yet he doesn't talk about what is in the heart being the clincher, but what they DID.

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

fyi, fruits while are inward are outwardly exposed as found in Galatians 5
love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance
ex: if a man is not temperant, the eye knows this, it is seen

Interestingly enough we have a companion set of verses that proceed with the same central theme:
Matthew 25
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Should we read this and believe only the hypocrites shall be condemned for these things? Do you believe some of these people are Christians?
Note that is wasn't hidden things of the heart condemning them here, but inaction. The heart might have caused the inaction, but it was inaction.

It ties back to Matt 7:21
he that doeth the will of my Father

Damn_Underscore posted...

Originally, were you trying to say that conservatives are bad or liberals are good because Jesus also said if you aren't with me you're against me? If not then good, I really don't have anything more to argue about. I already told you what I think.

All I was saying is Jesus said the phrase. I had no intent. Not sure why it bothered you or what context was lost by suggesting he said that.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Should isn't necessarily a conditional word and shall doesn't necessarily mean definitely.

I don't know what to say about this. Shall most definitely means there is nothing else. It shall be done means only that it without dispute will be. Should also has no other meaning than the possibly of correctness is what is expected, but not necessarily what will happen.

It isn't an argument of semantics anyways, but one of innovation. Consider the texts that have shall there and date them. The oldest one was made in about the 50s. The translations with should predate it by quite a lot. Makes you wonder why this happened, especially when there was a large movement to patent or that is to make profits off of translations by purposely changing words and phrases such that the text was no longer considered public domain.

Damn_Underscore posted...

With the "Lord, Lord" thing, I think he's talking about hypocrites who appear good on the outside but are really evil in their hearts.

And yet he doesn't talk about what is in the heart being the clincher, but what they DID.

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

fyi, fruits while are inward are outwardly exposed as found in Galatians 5
love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance
ex: if a man is not temperant, the eye knows this, it is seen

Interestingly enough we have a companion set of verses that proceed with the same central theme:
Matthew 25
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Should we read this and believe only the hypocrites shall be condemned for these things? Do you believe some of these people are Christians?
Note that is wasn't hidden things of the heart condemning them here, but inaction. The heart might have caused the inaction, but it was inaction.

It ties back to Matt 7:21
he that doeth the will of my Father

Damn_Underscore posted...

Originally, were you trying to say that conservatives are bad or liberals are good because Jesus also said if you aren't with me you're against me? If not then good, I really don't have anything more to argue about. I already told you what I think.

All I was saying is Jesus said the phrase. I had no intent. Not sure why it bothered you or what context was lost by suggesting he said that.

I have a co-worker named Matthew tbqh
---

He who smelt it dealt it
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdvm6h8WKg
Gotta sell that war. Good enough of a tag line to do it.

So that's why the liberals are siding with the terrorists now...

Trump basically said "if you're not with me, you're against us" today lol
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pez_79eWSWw
---

I wasn't expecting an intense theological discussion in this topic.

Anyway - libs don't have me, nor do cons. I stand with myself.
---

I'm going to respond one more time just so I don't leave you hanging.

First of all, about should/shall, just read the different definitions for each word (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall), not just the first definition. I'm not a master of Bible translations, but I feel like I take the same meaning from that verse as you do. Either way, it's great if you can understand the King James Version, but that is gibberish to me, and that defeats the purpose of reading the Bible and the Gospels.

If you have a good heart, that will lead you to do good thing and therefore do God's will. And it's not like if you have a bad heart you can never have a good heart or vice versa. "Having a good heart" just means you are self-aware and that you strive to do things. If someone is paralyzed, are they damned to hell because they can't "do" God's will? I don't agree with people who say you only have to believe in Jesus to be saved.

The word Hypocrite comes up so often because Jesus condemns hypocrites so much, by far more than any other group. Among humans, there really aren't many people who are purely evil. Many humans put up a show of being good or righteous but are evil in their hearts. If you want to talk about themes, it makes so much sense that Jesus condemns hypocrites (most often the Pharisees and other religious leaders of the time) so often.

But this is my last response. I don't feel like discussing this anymore because I could respond to you all day and we'll just go in circles. Thank you for that quality discussion.
---

Only liberals deal in absolutes
---

And on the seventh day, God grabbed them by the pussy.
---

Otto spelled backwards is Otto - Jesus
---