From the Lions’ Den to the Angels Den

The lesson we have attempted to teach in the past is that we should have the courage of Daniel. We have all sung the song, “Dare to be a Daniel.” We never thought it necessary to teach that we should side with Daniel rather than the evildoers who were plotting against him. Even a small child was capable of discerning that Daniel was righteous and the evildoers plotting against him were wicked. But those days are gone. In this age of Donald Trump, white evangelicals, including some Seventh-day Adventists, are so morally depraved that they cannot differentiate righteousness from wickedness. They do not understand that they should side with the Daniels of our society rather than evildoers such as Trump. One can easily imagine supporters of Trump accusing Daniel of being part of the Deep State if they had lived during that time. Imagine all of the hateful things right-wing Trump-loving propagandists would have said about Daniel if they had lived during that time.


I wasn’t trying to say that science has nothing to say about physical reality. Science is all about physical reality when it comes to outlining and cataloging regularities of nature. My point is that politics is more about philosophy than science. Understanding how something works doesn’t spell out what we should do. That’s where science stops and begins to serve ideology that picks it up.

Paul, let’s not be naive. We are not in the post WWI Nazi Germany, and Trump is not a modern-day Hitler. He’s a Kim Kardashian of political process. Conservatives love him predominately because he’s sticking it to the Left while riding the wave of the economic boom cycle. He hasn’t departed that far from the traditional Conservative narrative. He merely amplified it with some open mud-slinging that was going on in left-right ideological conflict in the US.

All of us tend to reside in our respective echo chambers, and it’s not necessarily problematic. I think that globalizing the local problems, and then imposing solutions out of context is a much larger problem that tends to be undressed in US political discourse.

There isn’t enough awareness in certain blind ideologies that are not willing to see that there’s a different world with different problems beyond the boundaries of one’s rural or urban community. So, we can’t possibly expect the solutions to these problems to be a singular approach from a single political party that only panders to one side of the fence. It doesn’t solve the problems on either side.

We need to settle down. Stop calling each other names, and figure out how to best understand each other’s needs better. These are not the same needs we have.

You are idealizing the process that doesn’t exist as such in reality. People are wrong, and they have ego issues. They do defend their pet theories, especially if they’ve invested a great part of their lives developing them. Many of them disagree, and keep disagreeing… at least until the textbooks are written and these matters are standardized through education or indoctrination.

Scientific method doesn’t immunize people from holding wrong opinions about something they have no access to as far as validating certain data sets, or simply going along with faulty data. It likewise doesn’t eliminate existential fears and pressures that all of us have to deal with.

Any expert will naturally be adept in the field they are specializing in. Each of these is a form of “science” in respect to understanding of these processes. So, each person who specializes in something is a “scientist” of a sort, because what you call science is merely how our brain functions. It tries to figure out the reality and use that understanding to our advantage.

I’m not sure how useful the term “Scientist” is when it comes to describing generic expertise of a person to make the right decisions in broader political process in a way that would immunize someone from propaganda.

You have to remember that Nazi Germany had plenty of “all in” scientists who served that particular cause.

Paul… science generally thrives under authoritarian roof, precisely because science is morally-agnostic. The same science behind healing people can be used to kill them… and it does. Science can’t guide us anywhere. It always trails some ideology… and moral debates are always at the level of ideology. Science can support these ideologies with facts, but it can’t validate these without pointing to some inherent philosophical assumptions that must be strung together to make an ideological appeal.

Paul, don’t take this the wrong way, but for me, a person who resided in over 5 countries at some point in my life… it’s absurd.

Every nation will have their own set of “cultural propaganda”. US is perhaps the source of the most effective propaganda in the history of the world… that you yourself seem to buy into. In fact, it incorporated and polished that propaganda as a the way of life, beginning with corporate economic order, and ending with its internal and external politics.

Daniel was a foreigner with a different sets of values, and he kept his cultural preferences in spite of various inconveniences and threat to his life. But, it’s the Jewish take on that particular part of the history. Of course… you will not find any of these accounts in Babylonian stories, because these stories are a form of Hebrew Propaganda :slight_smile: in the best sense of that word. One’s propaganda can be simply other’s established culture or religion.

You don’t seem to be bothered by the fact that you very well can be on the wrong side of the story… in the chained progression of Adventist-Judeo-Christian-American.

I’m curious as to what your thoughts are about the clip below:

1 Like

Some speculations: Daniel 6 is not about politicians. These are distractions. Daniel 6 is rather about Jesus Christ, God the father, maybe about Lucifer, and for sure about us. It is about the vindication of God. It is about the misery of sin. It is about two different laws, one of them leads to death, the other one leads to life.

Who is Darius in Daniel 6, who does he stand for? For God who is bound by his law? For us who are bound by sin? For the watching creatures of the universe who are bound by anguish for a night (6:18-20)? Who is bound by the law to throw his favourite and blameless prince to the abyss? What a strange law! Who signs such a misery? How could Darius be fooled so badly, how blind must he have been? Is it sin? The sin that, once committed, binds us and requests the death penalty from the innocent and blameless one? This law that the accusers mention repeatedly in a threatening way against the king (6:8.12.15). The law that should last for 30 days - 30 years, the span of Christ’s life? The law that is opposed to the law of Daniel’s God (6:6).

According to which law did God have to let Jesus die at Golgotha? Isn’t that the crucial and stunning question that this kindergarden story raises and surprisingly answers: it was not according to God’s law! Or was it? Was it God the father that tried everything possible until sundown then on that friday at Golgotha to keep his prince from the lion’s den? (6:14) What desperate negotiations took place in the last hours? Does Daniel 6 give us a visionary glimpse of the moment when the fate of all life on earth was at stake? Does God reveal this in a story that even children may understand?

God’s law is only mentioned once by the satraps and governors (6:6). When at work, it motivates Daniel naturally to pray. There is no coercion, as the satraps would expect. Guirguis up here rightly mentions breathing. Daniel was not trying to obey a law, he was “serving his God continually” (6:16.20). God’s law is naturally in support of life. The law that threw Daniel to the lion’s den was the rigid law of the Medes and Persians. This should have profound implications on our theology of redemption. Who kills whom for what?

Finally the evil administra(i)tors are killed without a law of the Medes and Persians. The king is free to command, once he is not in need to justify his actions anymore in front of the satraps. Suddenly they are called “false accusers” (6:24). The sign from above, the survival of the innocent one on whom was found “no wound” (6:23) legitimates judgement, vindicates the prince and vindicates God. Daniel 6 is a chapter about vindication. About the true law and about the reason for the cross.


Just remember that many people said that Hitler was not what he was. But he was! … However, people chose to be naive anyway, and we know the result.

First, it seems that by your logic we should expect any person with few overlapping “Hitler-like” characteristic to be Hitler, no matter if the rest of these don’t fit.

I’ll do a breakdown for you…

Like Hitler: charismatic populist leader, scapegoats minority group for economic woes, attacks free press, riding on the promise of restoring former glory of the nation…

That’s where the similarities end really.

Not like Hitler: Trump is not a patriot . He’s a multi-national corporate mogul with business entamglents all over the world. He doesn’t seem to believe his own narrative, so there’s inconsistent and duplicitous morality. He arguably didn’t bring the country out of economic crisis. He didn’t institute any extreme FDR-like measures and didn’t create government workforce. His efforts are more towards deregulation as opposed to regulation. He isn’t entangled with military power. He is battled by the liberal opposition that will be twice as fierce if he gets into his lame duck second term. Most of the media outlets are against him, and there’s nothing he can do to stop that. The internal departments like FBI and Justice system don’t like him.

In short, he merely rides the executive branch and media exposure that he has in order to pander to populistic brand that he sets up. And since Democrats don’t have any strong counter or similarly charismatic personality… they are losing.

So, I don’t mind you comparing specifically… but a full blown label on basis that he may unexpectedly become Hitler is absurd. And it makes you and anyone making that claim seem absurd and extreme. And as you align yourself with the left who may be repeating that claim… it makes them seem irrational and extreme. And that’s how he will win this election, if he will win it.

1 Like

Thanks for doing a breakdown for me. (Though it sounds like a teacher talking to a dumb student…)

Well, anyway… I have the impression that our opinions disagree…, and they are irreconcilable.

1 Like

I’m not sure what your opinion is, since you are not providing any specifics of your argument.

Can you specify how Trump is like Hitler?

Not dumb … Just seeming ignorant about certain facts of history. I say seemingly, since you are speaking in generalities and not facts?

Do you care to break it down for me?

For those who do not get it by just seeing Trump’s actions and behavior (and blatant corruption!), there is no amount of explanation or specificity that will open their eyes.

Don’t expect me to waste my time writing it all down - you do not appear willing to see anything anyways but Trump’s holiness. “Heil Trump!”

1 Like

I can see a very common thread of this particular maneuvering that you employ when asked to back your claim up with some facts.

  1. You make a statement that I find to be both factually incorrect and inflammatory.

  2. I disagree with that statement by listing why * think it’s incorrect and inflammatory. I invite you to back your claims up with facts.

  3. You avoid doing so by either playing hurt by me lecturing you, or appealing to obvious nature of your claim… which seemingly should be obvious to everyone because you merely said so.

Just letting you know that I like you very much, and we agree on many things, but I find this tactic dishonest and it tends to further drive wedges in our present political divide, rather than adding to contributing to rational conversations that points to obvious facts.

In today’s political climate we need more calm and rational discourse and less Hitler comparisons. If you remember, not so long ago Obama was “the Hitler” also for those on the right. Plus, it really diminishes what Hitler did, which is nowhere near Trump’s negative actions.

1 Like

Phil, and others, in this thread show just how partisanism is just as discriminatory as any other ISM-but justified in their own minds that their pet form of racism, genderism, ageism, nationalism is morally justified has exposed their gleeful ascension to the throne itself at the nadir of hypocritical irony.

Pretty sure that when our souls are required of us, and we are asked by the One who knows how to ask questions if we “got the message” in his love letter, but our answer is “I FOUND TRUMP EVERYWHERE THERE”, divinity will issue soul-anguishing sigh to the inevitable forthcoming wailing and gnashing.

Oh how we have descended.

I am sorry I will not be able to call you “ignorant” just because you see things differently than I…

Coincidentally, I am just reading an eye opener book, The Collapse of the Third Republic, (by William Shirer, 1,100 pages) that is strengthen ing my opinions about Trump.

Please understand that the fact that one posts their opinions and views here doesn’t meant they have to be discussed in a fighting mode. At least I won’t. You disagree with me? I’m fine with it. Calling it dishonest maneuvering disqualifies any further comment.


Blatantly offensive, simplistic tripe. [quote=“phil, post:6, topic:19744”]
Donald Trump supporters fall into these classifications:

  1. Ignorant people
  2. People who have a binding orientation
  3. People who are doing well who mistakenly think that Trump is responsible for the good economy that he inherited. Money is more important for these people than our democratic institutions, norms, and values.
  4. White supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis

I would posit that it speaks of a different revelation, namely that one feels self superior to others.

Perhaps Mr Brantley should attend political science, or even get a law degree,
but seems he has mistaken and exchanged blinding orientation for moral superiority. Under the metric he suggests, I am interested in his thoughts on the progressivists failures in standing for progressive values, oh, like fairness, equal application of law, oh, and bullspit spewing.

But never no mind, not going to go there.
I am, however, grateful at his pedantic civic lesson and hypocritical example of bs receptivity.

He would rather throw us non socialists into the furnace, turned up 470 times.

1 Like

I read his rise and fall of the 3rd reich. took a while.
there is a movie in black and white “the rise and fall of the
third reich” actual footage. And comments by Wm. Shirer

his one on Gandhi is also quite good.

1 Like

Daniel’s integrity can be replicated today as we are thrown into the voting booth.
In Daniel’s days, the satrapas (governors) wrote the law, and the King signed it.
Nowadays, WE the people actually write the laws, according to what we write on the ballots when we are in the voting booth (or by mail, of course). There is a personal responsibility for who is chosen for the government.
I am, in no way, responsible for having a President with Trump’s character and personality disorder.

And, just in case someone jumps on my “personality disorder” comment, they should read this book first:

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President - Updated and Expanded with New Essays

Can read a prologue for free.

1 Like

“Because of the spread of wickedness the love of most men will grow cold, though the man who holds out to the end will be saved.” Matthew 24:12 (Phillips)

1 Like

Thank you! I am most interested in such studies as I am constantly trying to understand the “why”.

Just as long as we aren’t exhibiting Trump character in denigrating that same character in him.

1 Like

Is the Goldwater rule no longer recognized in the APA’s Principles of Moral Ethics?

1 Like

Thank you too for sharing your perspective.

1 Like