But of course.Originally Posted by Dan Henderson
And everybody is entitled to my opinion, sorry, couldn't help myself
But of course.And everybody is entitled to my opinion
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - thanks for this funny post
Indeed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are just not all equally well informed or valid.You of course are entitled to your opinion.
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-EschenbachPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingJim Chabot - "thanks" for this post
They are just not all equally well informed or valid ... as mine ...Indeed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are just not all equally well informed or valid.
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Laughing
Agreed and thank you. Most gracious of you to concede.Indeed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are just not all equally well informed or valid.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Exactly Hans couldent have put it better myselfWell, socialists are of the devil, so that cancels one. The leader of the Lib Dems is half Dutch, he can't be much. Leaves us with David, which is a Biblical name as well, so you can't go wrong there!
Well, socialists are of the devil, so that cancels one. The leader of the Lib Dems is half Dutch, he can't be much. Leaves us with David, which is a Biblical name as well, so you can't go wrong there!
I would add, socialism isnt evil, in its purest form its Biblical. To reject socialism entirely, is to reject much of Bibles teachings.
Now I bet someone will disagree
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 1 Laughing
Pssst, quiet, Ian! We know that, but we really don't want to upset our American friends, do we?
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 8 Laughing
Opinions are like navels - everyone has one and most of them should not be shared with others.
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 4 Laughing
Dan!! We agree again!! I see something beautiful growing!And everybody is entitled to my opinion
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Wesley's Notes
John Gill21:21 Let them that are in the midst of it - Where Jerusalem stands (that is, they that are in Jerusalem) depart out of it, before their retreat is cut off by the uniting of the forces near the city, and let not them that are in the adjacent countries by any means enter into it.
21:22 And things which are written - Particularly in Daniel.
21:24 They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive - Eleven hundred thousand perished in the siege of Jerusalem, and above ninety thousand were sold for slaves.So terribly was this prophecy fulfilled! And Jerusalem shall be trodden by the Gentiles - That is, inhabited. So it was indeed.The land was sold, and no Jew suffered even to come within sight of Jerusalem. The very foundations of the city were ploughed up, and a heathen temple built where the temple of God had stood.The times of the Gentiles - That is, the times limited for their treading the city; which shall terminate in the full conversion of the Gentiles.
21:25 And there shall be - Before the great day, which was typified by the destruction of Jerusalem: signs - Different from those mentioned Luke 21:11 , &c. Matthew 24:29 ; Mr 13:24.
21:28 Now when these things - Mentioned Luke 21:8 ,10, &c,begin to come to pass, look up with firm faith, and lift up your heads with joy: for your redemption out of many troubles draweth nigh, by God's destroying your implacable enemies.
21:29 Behold the fig tree and all the trees - Christ spake this in the spring, just before the passover; when all the trees were budding on the mount of Olives, where they then were.
21:30 Ye know of yourselves - Though none teach you.
21:31 The kingdom of God is nigh - The destruction of the Jewish city, temple, and religion, to make way for the advancement of my kingdom
It does seem that many have and do believe that the Romans were God's chosen instrument to just that!Luke 21:28
And when these things begin to come to pass
When the first of these signs appears, or any one of them:
then look up and lift up your heads;
be cheerful and pleasant; do not hang down your heads as bulrushes, but erect them, and put on a cheerful countenance, and look upwards, from whence your help comes; and look out wistfully and intently, for your salvation and deliverance:
for your redemption draweth nigh;
not the redemption of their souls from sin, Satan, the law, the world, death, and hell; for that was to be obtained, and was obtained, before any of these signs took place; nor the redemption of their bodies at the last day, in the resurrection, called the day of redemption; for this respects something that was to be, in the present age and generation; see ( Luke 21:32 ) but the deliverance of the apostles and other Christians, from the persecutions of the Jews, which were very violent, and held till these times, and then they were freed from them: or by redemption is meant, the Redeemer, the son of man, who shall now come in power and glory, to destroy the Jews, and deliver his people; and so the Ethiopic version renders it, "for he draws nigh who shall save you".
Blessings
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
George, it is quite clear that both the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Romans have been used by God. That they brought liberation though, is lunacy. They brought judgement.
One might as well state that Hitler liberated the Jewish people. Or Ferdinand and Isabella of Castilia. History, unfortunately, is full of examples of such "liberators".
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Attributing to God what he didn't do is simply the other side of the coin of failing to credit Him for what he did do. Both reflect fundamental misunderstanding of God's revelation of himself.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thank you John, what you wrote is spot on!
Likewise we cannot attribute to human systems the COMPLETE approval and blessing of God. Thus IMHO, neither socialism, nor capitalism, not absolute monarchies nor liberal democracies are completely right and good or completely bad and evil. FLAWED PEOPLE MAKE THEM WHAT THEY BECOME!
That being said the most desirous system (blessed by God) is our Constitutional Monarchical Liberal Democratic Capitalistic society.... isn' it!?
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think that Georges point is that many have held this opinion over the years. I believe this was the prominent view until recent years beginning with the Irvingites and Margaret MacDonaldism. These days the Preterist view has been drowned out by the loud shouting of the Fundamentalist, Dispensationalists and Charismatics.
Again Jesus said it would happen and Jesus said that it indicated redemption. And most folks took Him at His word for 1800 years or so. Also I think that it's reasonable that God would seek to purge that which would continue to keep folks from him. Experience has shown that the sacrificial system has not returned.
It's Scriptural, Traditional, Reasonable and Experiential.
Hitler has no bearing nor import. Violence can be used for good as well as evil. I believe this is at the root of our disagreement on this. I'm guessing that we are both pretty firm in our views on violence?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Very true, yet in the instance of the Roman's destroying Jerusalem we have Jesus telling us that He will bring this to pass, and we have Jesus also telling us that this is liberation. "your redemption draweth nigh." I believe that is is a stretch to deny God's hand and purposeful intent in this.Thank you John, what you wrote is spot on!
Likewise we cannot attribute to human systems the COMPLETE approval and blessing of God. Thus IMHO, neither socialism, nor capitalism, not absolute monarchies nor liberal democracies are completely right and good or completely bad and evil. FLAWED PEOPLE MAKE THEM WHAT THEY BECOME!
That being said the most desirous system (blessed by God) is our Constitutional Monarchical Liberal Democratic Capitalistic society.... isn' it!?
God sent His Son to die on our behalf, God sacrificed that which was most precious to Him for us. The folks who claimed the name of God rejected the Son and the sacrifice. Do you think that God would not be angry? Think cleansing of the Temple times 1000 perhaps. Does He no longer have the capacity for the white hot fury that His great love requires?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
You forgot something, Jim:
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Well, as soon as we see the Son of man coming, I am indeed sure our redemption draweth nigh.
Can't imagine any Christian who would deny that. Obviously, that has not yet come to pass. Or one would have to claim that the 2nd coming has already taken place, including the final judgement and the new heaven and the new earth. If that is the case, we find ourselves in the situation Paul describes in 1 Cor 15 and indeed, "If in this life [as we see it since 70 AD] only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." We've all been fooled and might as well go home and forget about it. Let's keep it biblical and "let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die."
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Not forgetting anything Hans. You are grouping a bunch of events together where a connection does not properly exist. We have been down this road before, as to verse 27, He has come! No I'm not a heretic for believing this as you have once asserted for creedally this coming is in reference to the final judgement alone, "judge the living and the dead." Yes I have consulted with a couple of professors in the religion department and they assure me that my views are just fine in the CoTN.
I don't suspect that we will agree, as your views appear to be somewhat solidified, and while I love having these conversations with folks who are willing to listen and reason. I don't feel an overwhelming need to respond to derision. I realize that while the Preterist view was predominate throughout most of history, it has been shouted down over the past century or so by the Dispensationalists, The Fundamentalists and The Charismatics.
Don't suffocate me, I am more than willing to allow you to continue in your views on this.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Nelson put this in the current events and I finally broke down and commented. My hat's off (so to speak) to the Catholic Church for their backbone to stand for integrity and value.
LOL SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM...,.running for cover.
Honestly Hans, I think this is one instance where we probably agree more than we disagree. I believe at a minimum Matt. 24:1-34 and its corresponding Synoptic accounts refer strictly to the Judgment of Jerusalem. You are 100% correct the Romans were used by God for Judgment on Israel. Truth be told, I too am a bit uncomfortable with the term “liberators.” If one uses the liberators in the strictest sense, then possibly the term is a stretch.
However, if one is willing to take the term liberator a little more broadly, then it does seem to fit in some way. I see it fitting in two primary ways. Jerusalem was the “mother” church, yet she was an anemic mother. Antioch early on became the church of prominence. There are a number of factors that led to this church of origin becoming weak and sickly, but certainly one contributor was that the blasphemous, Old Covenant religion was still practiced and had a place of prominence there. This had to have an oppressive effect on the localized growth of the church. What an absolute affront to God and Christ were the continued Temple sacrifices! With the destruction of Jerusalem from A.D. 66-70 the church was freed, ‘liberated’ forever from this effrontery to Christ and Christians.
Secondly, if there was one Saul to hold the cloaks at Stephens stoning, we know that there were many others like him willing and active in persecuting the Jerusalem church in the foremost. The Roman/Jewish destruction did in fact free or ‘liberate’ the Church from real physical persecution at the hands of the Jews.
Thirdly, while I do not include this as a true “liberation” in any sense, as to be truly liberated one must actually be held captive or be undergoing some persecution, but it was certainly a Providential sparing of the Church in the fact that it did not go through the absolute horrors visited upon the Jews during the siege. Josephus’ account reveals that it was truly horrible, mother stealing the food from the mouths of their babes, sons stealing a morsel almost from the throat of their fathers. And most of this was Jew on Jew violence, could you imagine how horrible it would have been to be a Christian there and then!? I shudder to think. But, providentially the church escaped to Pella.
So, realistically I have no real love for the term ‘liberator’ and I feel in the strictest sense that using the term is a stretch, I am just unwilling to say that it is wholly inaccurate or wholly inappropriate in all cases. If you have a better word or phrase, I’m all ears. Maybe simply “providential sparing” would work in most cases, but at least in the first two instances I mentioned above it seems to be more than just that.
Of course all analogies break down at some point, but the best one I’ve come up with is to liken this to the case of a woman caught up in the oppression and despotism that is domestic violence. If her drunken wife beating husband, wraps is car around a pole and dies, isn’t she ‘liberated’ from the endless cycle of violence and beatings? Her oppressor in fact became her liberator.
Anyway, I have no strong affinity for “liberator” or “liberation” I just think that it can be used, not that it must.
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Only problem is thatdoesn't refer to Christ's second coming, but of His Judgement of Israel in A.D. 70."27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory"
Coming In the Clouds
Seems you missed:
32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Seems the church expected an early parousia of Christ. Probably also based on statements like these. But the fact is, we're still waiting. Peter, of course, dealt with the issue and suggested that for God, 1000 years are like a day. Still, the fact that he had to deal with it made clear that people were still expecting Christ in their lifetime, but it had not happend. And still hasn't.
What we are facing here has to do with prophecy as a concept. I love Jeremiah in that respect, because he so clearly explains how God looks at prophecy: not as information regarding the future so much, but as a warning, that will come to pass dependent on the reaction of the people involved. Which goes for both the announced judgement (see Jonah) and the blessings.
So whatever has changed in God's view what made Him decide not to sent Jesus back yet, I don't know, but the fact is pretty obvious.
And of course we also have the words of the Lord in which He states that only the Father knows the hour anyway.
And whatever verse 27 refers to, it cannot have come to pass yet, for nobody as yet has seen the Son of Man coming with the clouds.
Of course, ever since the Kingdom was inaugurated, we live in the yet/not yet tension. I would say it is neither good to deny what has happend, nor to deny what is yet to come. Both are true, and as I said, stand in tension towards one another.
But my prayer, with John the Revelator, is "Come, Lord Jesus!"
As to your other post, thank you! I'll try to respond when I have a little more time.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Well, I would not dare to say that. Parts of it certainly do, for other parts such an interpretation looks like a stretch to me. After all, the entire discourse seems to be an answer to this question: "When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?’" Now "the age to come" has come, in a sense, and has not. The famous yet/not yet of the Kingdom. I will defend both.
I certainly believe the events in AD 67-70 play a role, perhaps AD 132-135 as well, but we're not at the end of the events yet. If only because the "parousias" (v3) has not happened yet.
Quite a stretch.
It seems our ways part somewhat here.
Acts 2:46 - Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, ...
Seems to me that the leadership at that point in time, just after having been filled with the Holy Spirit, didn't have a problem with " the blasphemous, Old Covenant religion". Which of course makes sense. After all, Jesus came to fulfil the Torah, not to abolish. (Matthew 5:17). Now it must have been clear to them that, as Hebrews 10:4 has it, "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Yet that very system was God ordained and pointed towards the one Lamb of God that did take away sin. It's not a stretch to me to presume that the early disciples understood all that happened in the temple to have been fulfilled in Christ, and considered it as pointing towards Him. Of course they didn't have a problem in a religious sense when it stopped (they would have seeing the destruction of all that was dear to them), as actually the non-Messianic Jews eventually didn't have either and managed to continue their faith without temple or sacrifices for almost 2000 years now. We can argue that apparently the temple was less crucial to Judaism than they might have thought initially. (I'm well aware that these are very broad and rough steps and statements, there is obviously much more to be said.)
Perhaps. But that very persecution led to the gospel being spread. The disciples, initially, pretty much stuck to Israel. It seems to me the persecution was God's method of having them do what Jesus had ordered them in Matt 28:19-20 and Acts 1:8. So this "liberation" would have worked against His purpose.
Yes, the Church was spared, because it gave heed to the words of the Lord to flee the city. At the same time, this brought about such animosity from the remaining Jews towards the Christians, that it actually increased tensions and persecutions of Christians in the years to come, and also led to the severing of ties between the root of the olive tree and some of the branches (Rom 11), and eventually virtually disrooted the church from its hermeneutical context. Together with the attempts to contextualize the gospel in a Hellenistic world, we've ended up taking in more of Plato and Aristotle than of the word of God as it came to us in the OT. And we are so divided now that it is impossible for the Church as a whole to recover from it. So I still see a lot of tragedy in the 67-70 events, both in terms of Jewish expectations and of Jewish-Christian relations and hence, OT influence in the Church.
As I wrote before, it seems clear that the early church expected the parousia within the first generation. As did Jesus. But as much as the events in 67-70 were predicted, they did not turn out to include the parousia of Christ yet. As to the reason, apparently, even the Son didn't know, let alone me. In stead we hear "‘It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’" (Acts 1:7) Interestingly, this remark does not deny that the kingdom will be restored to Israel, in whatever way that will be. But that is a side step
Only, I don't see a liberation. The Jews were not liberated, nor were the Christians, who would suffer from persecutions from the Romans (quite a few times, by instigation of Jews) for many years to come.
The only thing where Romans and liberation can be linked, as far as I can see, is in the crucifixion of Christ. In that regard, they were definitely instrumental in our liberation. But that had nothing to do with AD 70. Christians weren't oppressed by the sacrifices in the temple, but they kept being oppressed by Jews in the years after AD 70. Which made sense, for the Jews feared their relatively safe position in the empire. They were a clearly distinguished and somewhat tolerated minority, but now these gentiles started claiming the same exemptions from pagan duties the Jews enjoyed.
All in all, I'm still very uncomfortable with linking Romans and liberation, apart from the crucifixion of Christ. Way too often, in history, conquerors have been heralded as liberators, but turned out to be quite different. We must be really careful with these kind of designations. But I understand at that point, you agree.
Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and hope I have been able to clarify where I'm coming from. Thank you.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Matthew
Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”Mark
Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!”
2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?”Isn’t it possible, even probable that all of the “these things” references refer to what Christ had just been speaking about, that is no stone left unturned… the destruction of Jerusalem. It taken in context I find it hard to see it any other way.Luke
5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, 6 “These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”
7 So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”
I would argue that that particular “parousia’ did in fact happen and is in the past. The Spirit of Christ came in power and glory and destroyed Jerusalem.
All manner of Christians from every stripe have believed this and it is/was quite common, it has just been practically eclipsed by Hal Lindsey and Tim LeHaye type theology.
I would say, that (1) of course there is the progressive nature of Revelation, but (2) once they Jewish Christians understood that the Gospel was for all, both Jew and Greek. That any pointing that the temple sacrifices did was and abomination to the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Same goes for modern Judaism; it is an abomination, disgusting, heathen Talmudic false religion. There is only one people of God. Those who are children of Abraham by faith, that is believers whether they be Jew or Greek or???
You are right the Tora has been fulfilled and there is not reason to continue in types and shadows which pointed to the real thing!
Like I said, I don’t own stock in the term “liberation”. But the Diaspora started in earnest with Stephen many decades before this. And Christ did say “your redemption is near” speaking of the signs and the Christians did flee to Pella, So… that all I am saying.
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I would encourage you to do a word study of “coming in the clouds” idiom/phrasing and other similar phrases as used in the OT. I think you will be surprised to find, that it usually refers to a coming judgment in power and glory and not any sort of physical coming. I know you are much more a fan of the new than the old, but Wesley, Poole, Gill, Matthew Henry and literally hundreds of others on through to today have viewed this as relating to Christ coming in power, glory and mainly judgment upon Israel at the destruction of Jerusalem. The Matthew text 21:1-34 lends itself readily to this without any gymnastics. There is a nice precise transition with verse 36. The problem exists in that the parallel text, Luke 21 doesn’t divide up quite as nicely, appearing to attribute things that come later in the Matthew account. Luke appears to co-mingle things which are 2nd Coming related with A.D.70 judgment. It takes a bit of work to harmonize.
Unfortunately, at least over here even those who do not agree with the Dispensational hermeneutic, have been so influenced by it that unless one is Reformed or has looked to the Scholars of old from across the spectrum, then like you have stated most view this as Second Coming language. But, those who do have to deal with the “this” generation passages.
If you are truly interested I recommend: Matthew 24 and the Great Tribulation It is written primarily as a Dispensational Refutation, but the research is good and it is referenced well and it is free! At a little over 100 pages, it is also the best compact treatment of this that I am aware of.
Amen!
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Not starting a discussion on the Trinity, but the Son of man is not the same as the Holy Spirit. To me, the parousia of Christ is the parousia of the 2nd persn of the Trinity. I guess I'm rather simple in this regard.
Anyway, the key seems to be here: how many parousias are there actually? One in AD 70, another in AD 135, one to come, more to come?
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Believe whatever makes you happy, this is not of critical import (although those who embrace the Dispensational system seem to want to make it so) but I was just trying to accommodate to your chosen words. Actually there is no parousia in Matthew 24: 30 his coming in the clouds is ἐρχόμενον. Just a generic coming. I used Spirit because it wasn't a physical coming, but a coming in power and judgement just as the text clearly says.
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I happily grant you the same freedom, George, and I am glad so see you enjoy it.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
God must spend a lot of time writing disclaimers.Thank you John, what you wrote is spot on!
Likewise we cannot attribute to human systems the COMPLETE approval and blessing of God. Thus IMHO, neither socialism, nor capitalism, not absolute monarchies nor liberal democracies are completely right and good or completely bad and evil. FLAWED PEOPLE MAKE THEM WHAT THEY BECOME!
That being said the most desirous system (blessed by God) is our Constitutional Monarchical Liberal Democratic Capitalistic society.... isn' it!?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
