• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Australian Politics - The Morrison Period Part II

psionl0 said:
Where is the bit about overthrowing government? Where is the bit about a dictatorship?
Click to expand...
Can't you read?

The mandate proposes that there are seven "mountains" that Christians must control in order to establish a global Christian theocracy and prepare the world for Jesus' return. Those seven "mountains" are government, education, media, arts and entertainment, religion, family, and business.
Click to expand...
 
Urgh. Listening to Morrison on the ABC go on about people smugglers and not answering the question asked of him.
 
arthwollipot said:
Can't you read?
Click to expand...
Sure. Not a word about overthrowing the government nor establishing a dictatorship (theological or otherwise). Even if they managed to control government, there is no suggestion that they will pass laws requiring sinners to be stoned or something.

In the McCarthyist 1950s, the Menzies government tried to ban the Communist party but was stymied by the High Court. Menzies then went to the public with a proposed change to the Constitution so that he could "control" communism. He failed again.

The Communists really did have an agenda to overthrow the government and establish a communist dictatorship (unlike the Dominionists). So why did the public not support its ban? Among other reasons, nobody believed that the "commies" had any real chance of ever achieving their agenda in Australia - and they were right.

Freedom of conscience should always outweigh kooky minority agendas.
 
arthwollipot said:
I see that "establish a global Christian theocracy" doesn't mean "establish a global Christian theocracy" any more.
Click to expand...
Assuming the very worst interpretation of the Dominionist agenda (that they intend to go to war, destroy all current governments and execute all sinners) do you really think that they have a better chance of achieving their aim than the commies did?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Assuming the very worst interpretation of the Dominionist agenda (that they intend to go to war, destroy all current governments and execute all sinners) do you really think that they have a better chance of achieving their aim than the commies did?
Click to expand...

Unintentional comedy is delicious comedy.


Would you say that you are: very sympathetic, somewhat sympathetic, or not at all sympathetic to dominionist theology?

Asking for a friend who wonders what the **** you are playing at.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Unintentional comedy is delicious comedy.


Would you say that you are: very sympathetic, somewhat sympathetic, or not at all sympathetic to dominionist theology?

Asking for a friend who wonders what the **** you are playing at.
Click to expand...
I knew that you wouldn't DARE answer the question. Addressing the arguer is the only tool you have.
 
psionl0 said:
Assuming the very worst interpretation of the Dominionist agenda (that they intend to go to war, destroy all current governments and execute all sinners) do you really think that they have a better chance of achieving their aim than the commies did?
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters. That they have as much influence as they do concerns me.

If the situation were as you appear to believe it is - that they're an insignificant irrelevancy that can't possibly exert any meaningful influence - then no, I wouldn't be as bothered by them. But I don't believe they are an insignificant irrelevancy. I think that they are the clear and present threat to progressive democracy that they themselves claim to be.
 
arthwollipot said:
I don't think it matters. That they have as much influence as they do concerns me.

If the situation were as you appear to believe it is - that they're an insignificant irrelevancy that can't possibly exert any meaningful influence - then no, I wouldn't be as bothered by them. But I don't believe they are an insignificant irrelevancy. I think that they are the clear and present threat to progressive democracy that they themselves claim to be.
Click to expand...
Yet you have no idea of what exactly they would do if they had the opportunity to do so. At worst, they have some members in some government positions (and they wouldn't last long if they tried to implement some radical agenda).

I suspect that communists and Islamists are a bigger threat than Dominionists. They do have a radical democracy-overthrowing agenda.

arthwollipot said:
You should know by now that Psionl0 will never say anything definitive about what their personal beliefs are.
Click to expand...
Of course not. That is just a desperate attempt to divert attention away from my argument.

At least you are still willing to deal with my argument.
 
psionl0 said:
Yet you have no idea of what exactly they would do if they had the opportunity to do so. At worst, they have some members in some government positions (and they wouldn't last long if they tried to implement some radical agenda).

I suspect that communists and Islamists are a bigger threat than Dominionists. They do have a radical democracy-overthrowing agenda.
Click to expand...
I don't see very many communists or Islamists with this much influence over our government. If these three groups - dominionists, communists, and Islamists - are all trying to overthrow our government, I think the dominionists have been the most successful so far. The communists had some success in the 60s and 70s, but very little since then, and the Islamists are... well, nowhere, really.
 
psionl0 said:
See what I mean?
Click to expand...

How much of your stuff here is earnest? I lean heavily into irony most of the time especially when dealing with bad faith debate types. Some people miss that bit. You talk the big talk about having quality discussion yet you are at war in every thread. It could be everyone else’s fault…

I get the feeling you are fully earnest and not trolling. Which is a bit unfortunate really.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I think the dominionists have been the most successful so far.
Click to expand...
The only real example where they might have had some influence would have been in the gay marriage bill and they had no success at all (unless you think that an exemption for religious marriage celebrants is due to the actions of Dominionists).
 
Sideroxylon said:
How much of your stuff here is earnest? I lean heavily into irony most of the time especially when dealing with bad faith debate types. Some people miss that bit. You talk the big talk about having quality discussion yet you are at war in every thread. It could be everyone else’s fault…

I get the feeling you are fully earnest and not trolling. Which is a bit unfortunate really.
Click to expand...
You are still addressing the arguer. The influence or otherwise of Dominionists is a legitimate topic of discussion since arthwollipot frequently brings it up.
 
psionl0 said:
You are still addressing the arguer. The influence or otherwise of Dominionists is a legitimate topic of discussion since arthwollipot frequently brings it up.
Click to expand...

Sure it is and well done on your last post. But often what you do in your very combative style is to argue against ridiculous strawmen. How about you don’t do that but ask for clarification questions.

Arth is a very reasonable person but you always see the worst motive in him and behave like a dick. You don’t have to be so antagonistic in this thread.
 
I find the school chaplain program and having to opt out of RI and not being able to take other classes at the same time disturbing. I value our secularism and don’t want to see faith ideas have a role in politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom