.jpg)
I just found an interesting quote courtesy of Magnums Conservative Voice. It is a quote of Theodore Roosevelt.
"The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife. "A man who cheats on his wife is an unfaithful cad.
The dictionary defines a cad:
A man whose behavior is unprincipled or dishonorable.A man who loves other nations as much as his own is an adulterous/unfaithful man whose behavior is unprincipled or dishonorable. This is the thought that runs through my mind when I see Latin Americans hitting the streets of America waving Mexican flags or wishing to exploit American benefits while simultaneously hating the hand that feeds them.
It is immoral!
Posts
6 comments:
TheWay2k:
You are incorrect.
Before proceeding, however, you should be aware that my sentiments and overall philosophical, religious, and political approach to life is conservative—solidly so. Further I agree with you that those who protest against a country that treats its illegal aliens so well are… well, deeply disordered.
Their behavior, however, is not adulterous. It may be self-centered. It may be hypocritical. It may be cowardly. It may be scandalous… but certainly not “adulterous.”
Your agreeing with Roosevelt’s unfortunate metaphor implicitly equates the adulterous behavior of a man against his wife with the behavior of a man “who loves other nations as much as his own.” This is not only incorrect, it is unbiblical: you have no basis for doing so either in a relative or a figurative sense.
First, adultery is not “loving other women like his own wife.” It’s not love of anyone at all! You seem to confuse love with lust.
Second, you fall into the same trap as the Pharisees and Sadducees who put love of (1) rituals and the laws above the Lawgiver, and (2) the survival of the nation of Israel above its Savior. Rather than seeking the salvation of their individual souls they wrongly sought political freedom for Israel, i.e., for the “collective.” (Communism anyone?) Recall the chilling words of Chaiaphas: “Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” (John 11:50 KJV). Note that because of their disordered expectation (among other reasons), Christ was crucified.
Third, the concept of a country or state is a political one, i.e., it is an abstract idea. (How many countries have come and gone since the time of Christ?) The concept of a nation is less abstract because it usually implies a shared language, cultural traditions, beliefs, concrete territory, etc., but it is nevertheless formed over time based on a number of abstract concepts. A man’s wife, in contrast, is not abstract in any way: she is as concrete an individual as one can get. If a man commits an adulterous act against his wife, it is sin—pure and simple… and concretely expressed so in the Bible.
Fourth, there is nothing in the Scriptures or in the traditions, prayers, and reflections of the faithful through the ages (notwithstanding Roosevelt’s silly assertion) which asserts adultery is the same as loving other countries (i.e., collections of peoples) the same as their own. There is nothing immoral about loving other countries as much as one’s own, but nonetheless holding a deep “preference” for one’s own country. If you still believe it’s immoral, please indicate a Biblical reference that supports your position. If you “read into” or “interpret” certain Biblical passages to support your view, then please also provide a basis upon which we are to believe you have the authority to do so, and from where you acquired the authority.
What you’re proposing is nationalism. What I’m proposing is patriotism. There is a big difference.
Holopupenko
Holopupenko said,
First, adultery is not “loving other women like his own wife.” It’s not love of anyone at all! You seem to confuse love with lust.
Actually loving other women other than your wife is adultery. Defining love in the Greek sense of eros is meant for one person – whether it a man or woman. Phileo-love or Agape-love is meant for multiple people of both genders. In that sense you are correct about love. The love reserved between a man and a woman is exclusive. When it twists beyond a singularity, it twists into lust.
27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[c] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[d]
28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5: 27-28)
Holopupenko said,
Second, you fall into the same trap as the Pharisees and Sadducees who put love of (1) rituals and the laws above the Lawgiver, and (2) the survival of the nation of Israel above its Savior. Rather than seeking the salvation of their individual souls they wrongly sought political freedom for Israel, i.e., for the “collective.” (Communism anyone?) Recall the chilling words of Chaiaphas: “Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” (John 11:50 KJV). Note that because of their disordered expectation (among other reasons), Christ was crucified.
How this references with illegal Mexican aliens exploiting American resources is a mystery to me.
Holopupenko said,
Third, the concept of a country or state is a political one, i.e., it is an abstract idea. (How many countries have come and gone since the time of Christ?) The concept of a nation is less abstract because it usually implies a shared language, cultural traditions, beliefs, concrete territory, etc., but it is nevertheless formed over time based on a number of abstract concepts. A man’s wife, in contrast, is not abstract in any way: she is as concrete an individual as one can get. If a man commits an adulterous act against his wife, it is sin—pure and simple… and concretely expressed so in the Bible.
In secular sense you may have a modicum of accuracy, however in actually nationhood is an ancient and concrete concept. The reason that nations cease to exist is most often to cultural decay and invasive conquest. Some nations still exist even though their borders cease to exist. This occurred to the Jews for years. A modern example today would be the Kurds of the Middle East or the Basques of Spain. I am certain if you thought a little harder you could probably name a few others.
Further it is stated as adultery with God when nations forsake him (Israel in particular) in favor of the world. This is a marital metaphor. I am not saying either America or Mexico have adulterated themselves with God, however a nationality that uses another nation as its own and similtaneously paying homage to its own nation is cheating someone. That is adultery at the least and rape at the worst.
As Christians we are building the Kingdom (i.e. nation) of God beginning in our heart, yet by extension the nations (“kingdoms”) of this world will ultimately be under the sovereignty of the chief executive – Jesus Christ. There is nothing abstract about that.
Holopupenko said,
Fourth, there is nothing in the Scriptures or in the traditions, prayers, and reflections of the faithful through the ages (notwithstanding Roosevelt’s silly assertion) which asserts adultery is the same as loving other countries (i.e., collections of peoples) the same as their own.
There is nothing immoral about loving other countries as much as one’s own, but nonetheless holding a deep “preference” for one’s own country. If you still believe it’s immoral, please indicate a Biblical reference that supports your position. If you “read into” or “interpret” certain Biblical passages to support your view, then please also provide a basis upon which we are to believe you have the authority to do so, and from where you acquired the authority.
There are a huge amount of Scriptures and Theology that point to the metaphor of the adultery of loving other courntries:
Deut 7: 6-8 (Marriage)
Isa. 61: 10 (Marriage)
Isa 62: 4, 5 (Divorce and Re-marriage after forgiveness for adultery)
Jer. 2: 20 (Adultery/infidelity)
Jer. 3: 8 (Adultery)
All of Hosea Chapter 2 is about Israel’s adultery for chasing metaphorically of other nations.
The immorality is a nationality consorting on another nation’s resource for its own benefit. Either be a Mexican and live in Mexico or be an American living in America.
Holopupenko said,
What you’re proposing is nationalism. What I’m proposing is patriotism. There is a big difference.
Nationalism defined: NOUN:
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
Patriotism defined: NOUN:
Love of and devotion to one's country.
You do realize that order of usage is the predominant definition in dictionaries. I am certain you are relating to definition number 2 under “nationalism.” Hey look definition number 1 of “nationalism and the definition of “patriotism” are nearly identical. Definition number 3 is closer to the Reconquista idealism of the huge numbers of Mexicans coming to exploit the American way of life. Friend, no matter how you look at it, it is national adultery.
TheWay2k:
Much of what you say is unacceptable because it is a personal interpretation... which is precisely what occurs when one adheres to the heretical doctrine (or tradition of man) known as sola Scriptura. (Shulamite at Assimilatio Dei warned of it, provided a preemptive comment… and yet you so predicatively followed with a comment supporting this heresy that you ended up confirming Shulamite’s very point.)
Why (i.e., on what basis) should I or anyone accept your personal interpretation of the Scriptures as applied to concepts such as statehood or nationhood? (Even if a group of people adhere to that same interpretation, so what? Numbers don’t establish truth.) To use the term adultery as applied to love of one’s country wrt another (per your interpretation of the Scriptures) is ludicrous because it equivocates between the two types of love. It is not surprising, therefore, that you missed the implications of Israel looking to other nations as being adulterous against Israel (incorrectly) rather than adulterous against the God of Israel (correctly) by throwing all those passages around out of context.
Also, you implicitly assume that if one loves one’s country while loving another country is disloyal. Why? I love my country, the United States, and I love Ukraine where I currently live and work. (You’re imposing a political judgment while covering it with religious window dressing.) Does that mean I’m disloyal to or “adulterous” against the U.S.? I have a Greek-American friend that’s as conservative as you can get and such a strong patriot of the U.S. that it would make Oliver North blush… yet he’s lived in Greece for 15 or so years, married a Greek woman, all his children were born in Greece, and he LOVES Greece to death. Is he “disloyal” or “adulterous” against the U.S.? If you believe that, then you truly are a nationalist in the worst sense of that word because you are literally idolizing the U.S. Moreover and by this, you push people into hating other countries as a default position, because the slightest admiration of any other country will be interpreted (per your personal doctrine) as “adulterous.” That’s silly. I’m deeply conservative, but your manifestation of American nationalism makes me understand why the left fears an establishment of a theocracy in the U.S. Their fears may be partially justified.
Returning to the heresy of sola Scriptura, what authority do you have in asserting that the Scriptures are the pillar and foundation of truth, and who vested you with that authority? Consider only one of your assertions which is heavily laden with personal interpretation: “… yet by extension the nations (“kingdoms”) of this world will ultimately be under the sovereignty of the chief executive – Jesus Christ…” Really? “Chief Executive?” How do you square that with Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” among others?
To repeat Shulamite’s point: the very fact that we disagree and the fact that you try to impose your own personal interpretation of Scripture upon what are secondary worldly concerns is the best argument against the heresy of sola Scriptura.
Dude it is my blog, I am not holding a gun to your head to impose anything. You are free to believe as you wish.
It is ok to disagree with me and I with you. Don't sweat it.
I don't view Sola Scriptura as a heresy, I don't even theological tradition as a heresy (i.e. Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthdox). The only thing I view as a heresy is the denial of the bodily Resurrection of Christ or the denial that Jesus is the Son of God.
I actually very tolerant, I try to relate to humanity with the love of God. I view my ultimate nation as the Kingdom of God more than American.
I am angry at Latinos using American resources as if it is their own, it is not. The very nature of the Latino "Reconquista" of America adulterates the American ethos.
I do not have a problem with Latinos coming to America to better themselves, I do have a problem with Latinos coming to America and expecting preferential treatment that many American citizens do not even receive. It is wrong.
My disappointment in that has gotten you all bent out of shape on theological/dogmatic issues.
I am glad you love the Ukraine. But if you exploit the Ukraine's resources for your benefit requiring special consideration at the Ukrainian tax payer's expense, you too would adulterating Ukrainia. It does not like you are, so keep up the good work.
Whatever path you use to worship Christ, do not deny his Sonship or His Resurrection. It does not matter if you are anti-Sola Scriptura, Traditional or progressive. If you worship Christ aright you are ok with me. Don' get hung up on my view, it does not harm you.
:-)
You're correct in terms of my uncharitable tone... please accept my apologies.
I can't say I agree with some of your latest statements. For example, just because one believes Christ is Lord and Savior doesn't neccesarily mean one CAN'T hold heretical views -- which will eventually undermine faith... and certainly confuse the faith of others. But, as you correctly note, this can be discussed in more "gentle" terms.
There's lots of other battles out there more worth the time and effort: fighting each other only saps one's strength and is, quite likely, sin. Divide and conquer is one of the Devil's easiest tools against us...
I once heard an interesting metaphor about Christians: we're really porcupines. When the cold and darkness close in around us, we huddle closer together sharing bodily heat... up to the point when our quills/barbs start poking each other!
;-)
God's speed to you.
Good post.
We can agree to disagree on some things and agree on others.
Thanks man.
Post a Comment