
Originally Posted by
Benjamin Burch
I wouldn't call you a liar. I'd say you said something dishonest, to which I asked you to please not lie to me. I consider a liar to be someone who habitually lies. I certainly said no such thing about you. Nor would I.
Nor is there anything you could say that would make me quit loving you.
You're being very evasive, and thus my charge of dishonesty still stands. You might just be so confused, maybe I can help. Here is what actually happened...
You started by saying these things:
At which point, I never said anything about lying or dishonesty. Soo... your entire response here about "your perception" is completely besides the point. I never said you "lied" or were "dishonest" about your perception. Instead, I said your perception was absolutely wrong because I've said exactly the opposite of what you perceive.
At which point, you claimed:
However,
1) I didn't say what you claimed I was saying - because it was your perception, not what I said.
2) Posting my personal quotation is not "all [you] did". You did more, you interpreted it based upon "your logic".
Therefore, what you said was completely untrue, and therefore I called it dishonest. Get upset with me if you like, it is what it is. Now you've tried to evade the fact that this is how it actually played out. Like I said, maybe you simply confused yourself and didn't follow our conversation well, but this was the sequence of events and statements and I stand by my petition for you to be honest, due to the fact that what you said at first "all I did was quote you" was not true at all - because you did more than quote me - which you have since already admitted to.
Now, with that out of the way...
I never said anything about "true Christian." Look back at what I said. Likewise, this isn't all you said. You specifically said that I'd be drawing lines and having some be "in" and some be "out" because they are not "true Christians."
This doesn't follow, and you've yet to show how it would follow, because somehow you've once again conveniently left that out of this question above.
What I've said is very clear. It is against the call of Christ to fight and kill, specifically for a flag which has nothing to do with God whatsoever. As such, the Pledge and the Anthem exist as liturgical devices which draw us into a place where we are willing to go against the call of Christ and - worse yet - come up with crazy ways to justify somehow saying it isn't actually against the call of Christ!!
If that isn't syncretism, I'm not sure what is. These practices - as liturgical practices of the state - call us to identify with the state over against the Church, and be willing to fight wars against other Christians for things we deem right/necessary - such as the Civil War and Revolutionary War, specifically the Civil War.
The Civil War was an instance of Christian killing Christian so as to preserve one of two things:
1) The Union: The nation, the flag
2) The Confederation: Freedoms
This is the direct result of the call to arms given by the Pledge and the Anthem.
I have said nothing here of "in", "out", or "true Christians."